Delhi High Court
Deepak Bedi vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 16 March, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 948/2012
% Judgment delivered on 16th March, 2012
DEEPAK BEDI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. J.S. Rawat and Ms. Indu
Shekhar, Advocates
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for the
State/R-1
Ms. Anju Vaid, Advocate for
respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CRL.M.A.3309/2012 & CRL.M.A. 3310/2012 (Exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.
+ CRL. M.C. 948/2012
1. Notice issued.
2. Mr. Navin Sharma, learned APP for State accepts notice on
behalf of R1/State.
3. Ms. Anju Vaid, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of
Respondent No.2.
4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant
petition is taken up today for final disposal.
5. Vide instant petition the petitioner has sought to quash the FIR
No.10/2011 registered for the offences punishable under Section
406/498A Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Vikas Puri against
petitioner on complaint of respondent No.2.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that compromise
has been arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and
that respondent No.2 has settled all the issues with the petitioner qua
the aforesaid FIR, therefore, she is no more interested in pursuing the
case against the petitioner.
7. In pursuance to the settlement, the petitioner agreed to pay a sum
of Rs.6,00,000/- to respondent No.2. Out of the said settled amount, a
sum of Rs.4,00,000/- has already been received by respondent
No.2/complainant and the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is being
paid in the court vide Pay Order No.665125 dated 05.01.2012 drawn
on Union Bank, Moti Bagh, New Delhi. Respondent No.2 accepts the
same without protest.
8. Marriage between petitioner/accused and respondent
No.2/complainant has also been dissolved vide decree dated
07.12.2011 by mutual consent.
9. Respondent No.2/complainant is personally present in the court
with her counsel Ms. Anju Vaid, Advocate, who upon instructions
from her client submits that she has settled all the issues qua the
aforementioned FIR and received the entire settlement amount. Even
marriage between respondent No.2 and petitioner has also been
dissolved, therefore, in the circumstances she is no more interested to
pursue the case further against the petitioner. She has no objection if
the present FIR is quashed. IO SI Jai Ram present in court has
identified respondent No.2/complainant.
10. Learned APP on the other hand submits that the charge-sheet is
ready, however, not yet been filed. He further submits that if this court
is inclined to allow the instant petition, then heavy cost be imposed on
the petitioner as in the process the Government machinery has been
brought in motion and precious time of the court has been wasted.
11. However, I find force in the submission of ld. APP on costs and
also keeping in view that petitioner has sufficient means to pay the
costs, therefore while allowing the instant petition, I impose a cost of
Rs.50,000/- upon petitioner to be paid in favour of "Delhi High Court
Legal Services Committee" within two weeks from today with
intimation to SHO concerned. Proof of the same shall also be placed
on record. SHO concerned shall ensure the timely deposition of costs.
12. Keeping in view the settlement, decree of divorce dated
07.12.2011 and statement of respondent No.2, who is no more
interested to pursue the case further and in the interest of justice I
quash the FIR No.10/2011 registered under Sections 406/498-A Indian
Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Vikas Puri and all the proceedings
emanating thereof.
13. Criminal M.C. 948/2012 is disposed of on above terms.
SURESH KAIT, J
MARCH 16, 2012
Nn/jg
