Delhi High Court
Brijesh Arora & Ors. vs State & Anr. on 16 March, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 945/2012
% Judgment delivered on: 16th March, 2012
BRIJESH ARORA & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Rajani Chauhan, Advocate
for petitioners No.1 to 5
Mr. D.C. Akarniya, Advocate
for petitioner No.6/complainant
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for
the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CRL.M.C. 945/2012
1. Notice issued.
2. Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the
State.
3. Mr. D.C. Akarniya, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of
petitioner No.6/complainant.
4. The instant petition has been filed jointly by petitioner No.1 to 5/
accused persons and petitioner No.6/complainant and they have sought
quashing of FIR No.946/2008 dated 17.12.2008 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code,
1860 against petitioners No.1 to 5 at Police Station Prashant Vihar on
the complaint of petitioner No.6/complainant.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner No.6 submits that petitioner No.6
has settled all the issues with petitioners No.1 to 5 qua the aforesaid
FIR.
6. In pursuance to the settlement, the petitioner No.1 agreed to pay
a sum of Rs.4,85,000/- to petitioner No.6. Out of the said settled
amount, a sum of Rs.3,85,000/- has already been received by petitioner
No.6/complainant and the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is being
paid in the court vide Pay Order No.455958 dated 30.01.2012 for
Rs.49,000/-, Pay Order No.455974 dated 31.01.2012 for Rs.49,000/-,
both the Pay orders are drawn on The Karnataka Bank, Rohini, Delhi
and an amount of Rs.2,000 in cash to petitioner No.6/complainant. She
accepts the same without protest.
7. Marriage between petitioner No.1/accused and petitioner
No.6/complainant have also dissolved their marriage vide decree of
divorce dated 01.10.2011 by mutual consent.
8. Petitioner No.6/complainant is personally present in the court
with her counsel Mr. D.C. Akarniya, Advocate, who upon instructions
from his client submits that she has settled all the issues qua the
aforementioned FIR, she has received the entire settlement amount and
the marriage between petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.6 has already
been dissolved, therefore, in the circumstances she is no more
interested to pursue the case further against petitioner No.1 to 5.
Therefore, she has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.
9. Learned APP on the other hand submits that after completion of
the investigation, charge-sheet has already been filed and charges are
yet to be framed.
10. Learned APP further submits that if this court is inclined to
allow the instant petition then heavy cost be imposed on the petitioners
as in the process the Government machinery has been pressed into and
precious time of the court has been wasted.
11. Though I find force in the submissions of learned APP for
imposing cost upon the petitioners but keeping in view the financial
position of the petitioners I refrain to impose cost upon them.
12. Keeping in view the settlement, decree of divorce dated
01.10.2011 and statement of petitioner No.6, who is no more interested
to pursue the case further and in the interest of justice I quash the FIR
No.946 dated 17.12.2008 registered at Police Station Prashant Vihar
and all the proceedings emanating thereof.
13. Accordingly Criminal M.C. 945/2012 is allowed.
SURESH KAIT, J
MARCH 16, 2012
nn
