Delhi High Court
Gurjeet Singh Saluja & Ors vs State & Anr on 16 March, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 935/2012
% Judgment delivered on:16th March, 2012
GURJEET SINGH SALUJA & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. A.K. Thakur, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP.
Ms. Anju Vaid, Adv. for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CRL. M.C. 935/2012
1 Notice issued.
2 Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned APP for State accepts notice on
behalf of R1/State.
3 Ms. Anju Vaid, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of R2.
4 With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant
petition is taken up today for final disposal.
5 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No.
154/2011 dated 17.05.2011, a case was registered for the offences
punishable under sections 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860
against the petitioners on complaint of respondent No.2 at P.S. Kalkaji.
6 Further submits that vide compromise dated 30.06.2011, the
parties have amicably settled all the disputes qua the aforesaid FIR
and petitioner No.1 agreed to compensate respondent No.2 for a total
sum of Rs.7.5lacs.
7 Accordingly, petitioner No. 1 has already paid an amount of
Rs.5lacs to respondent No.2 out of the total settled amount.
8 Petitioner No1 hands over to respondent No.2, a demand draft
No. 783011 dated 23.02.2012 drawn on Indus Ind Bank, New Delhi for
a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- i.e. the remaining settlement amount to
respondent No.2, who is personally present in the court today with her
counsel, Ms. Anju Vaid, Advocate. She has been duly identified by
IO/SI Babulal. She accepts the same without protest.
9 Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on instructions submits
that the marriage between the parties has already been dissolved vide
decree of divorce dated 13.02.2012 and in view of the compromise
arrived at between the parties, respondent No.2 is no more interested to
pursue the case. She has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.
10 Learned APP on the other hand submits that investigation in the
case has been completed but Charge-sheet has not been submitted
before the trial court in view of compromise arrived at between the
parties.
11 She further submits that in the process, Government Machinery
has been in motion and precious time of the court has been wasted,
therefore, heavy costs should be imposed upon the petitioners while
quashing the FIR.
12 Though, I find force in the submissions made by learned APP
for State on costs, but keeping in view the financial position of the
petitioners, I refrain imposing costs upon them.
13 Keeping in view the above discussion, statement of respondent
No.2, Decree of Divorce and in the interest of justice, I hereby quash
FIR No. 154/2011, registered at P.S. Kalkaji, Delhi and all the
proceeding emanating therefrom.
14 Criminal M.C. 935/2012 is disposed of on above terms.
15 Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
MARCH 16, 2012
j
