Delhi High Court
Firoz Ahmed & Ors vs State & Anr on 12 March, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 891/2012
% Judgment delivered on: March 12, 2012
FIROZ AHMED & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Parvez Dabas and Mr. A.P.
Shukla, Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP
Ms. Parul for Mr. O.P. Bhatia,
Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Notice issued.
2. Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1/State.
3. Ms. Parul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
No.2 also accepts notice.
4. With the consent of the parties, the instant petition is taken up
for final disposal.
5. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR
No. 312/2000 registered at PS Sadar Bazar and the proceeding
emanating thereto.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR No.
312/2000 dated 13.9.2000, a case under Section 498-A/406/34 Indian
Penal Code, 1860, was registered against the petitioner on the
complaint of respondent No.2 at PS Sadar Bazar.
7. Learned counsel submits that vide settlement dated 19.9.2011,
respondent No.2 has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR against
the petitioners, therefore, she is no more interested to pursue the case
any further and prays that the instant petition may be allowed.
8. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner No.1 vide the
settlement mentioned above had agreed to pay a total amount of
Rs. 1.75 lac as lump sum for all the claims out of which, Rs. 1 lac has
already been paid and Rs.75,000/- is being paid today vide two
Demand Draft Nos. 227657 dated 24.02.2012 and 227689 dated
27.02.2012 for drawn on State Bank of India for Rs. 45,000/- and Rs.
30,000/- respectively both issued in favour of respondent No.2 and the
same are handed over to her in the Court.
9. Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court with her
counsel Ms. Parul. For her identification, apart from being identified
by her counsel, copy of her Voter Identity Card No. SNJ 1330497
issued by Election Commission of India, is taken on record (original
seen and returned).
10. Learned counsel, on instructions from respondent No.2 submits
that settlement has already been arrived between the parties vide
settlement dated 19.9.2011. The marriage between petitioner No.1 and
respondent No.2 has already been dissolved by talaknama and also
conveyed to her on 21.12.2011. The same has been recorded vide
order dated 21.12.2011 by the Court of S.C.J/RC (North) Delhi.
11. Learned counsel further submits that she is no more interested to
pursue the case any further as she has received the entire settlement
amount from petitioner No.1. Therefore, she has no objection if the
FIR mentioned have with the emanating proceedings, are quashed.
12. Learned APP on the other hand submits that the charge sheet has
been filed and charges have already been framed. The case is pending
for prosecution evidence.
13. Learned APP has further submitted that if this Court is inclined
to quash the FIR and the emanating proceedings, then heavy cost be
imposed on the petitioner as in the process, government machinery has
been pressed into and the precious time of the Court has been
consumed.
14. Keeping in view the settlement and dissolution of marriage
between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 and the statement of
respondent No.2 who is not interested to pursue the matter any further,
therefore in the interest of justice, I quash the FIR No. 312/2000 dated
30.9.2000 registered as PS Sadar Bazar with emanating proceedings
thereto.
15. Though I find force in the submission of learned APP on
imposing the cost, however, keeping in view the financial position of
the petitioners, I refrain from imposing cost on the petitioner.
16. Accordingly, CRL.M.C. 891/2012 is allowed and disposed of in
above terms.
17. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
MARCH 12, 2012
'raj'/jg
