Ajay Kumar and Others vs State and Another

Suresh Kait, J.

Crl. M.A. No. 2944/2012

Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.

Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.

Crl. M.C. No. 842/2012

Notice issued.

Mr. Naveen Sharma, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of State.

Respondent No. 2 is present in person with her father, Sh. Ravi Bhushan and mother Ms. Sudesh Sareen.

Learned Counsel for petitioners submits that FIR No. 20/2008, dated 19.05.2008 u/s 406, 498A & 34 IPC was registered at P.S. CWC Nanak Pura against petitioners on the complaint of respondent No. 2.

It is further submitted that vide settlement deed dated 06.01.2011, respondent No. 2 has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR against all the petitioners. Consequent to settlement mentioned above, Petitioner No. 1 agreed to pay Rs. 5 lacs in lump sum for all the claims. Out of which, Rs. 4,50,000/- has already been received by the respondent No. 2 and Rs. 50,000/- is to be received at the time of quashing of the FIR.

Further, it is submitted that the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- has been paid in Court vide Draft No. 095214, dated 09.09.11 in favour of Ms. Shalini/respondent No. 2.

It is further submitted that since respondent No. 2 is no more interested to pursue the case against the petitioners, therefore, the said petition may be allowed.

Respondent No. 2 is present in person with her parents. SI Rajvir Singh, I.O. of the case has identified respondent No. 2. It is submitted that she has settled all the claims qua the aforesaid FIR against all the petitioners and she has received the entire settlement amount from petitioner No. 1. Therefore, she is no more interested to pursue the matter and she has no objection if the aforesaid FIR No. 20 registered at P.S. CWC Nanak Pura against the petitioners is quashed.

Respondent No. 2 has further submitted that in pursuance to the settlement deed dated 06.01.2011, marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 has been dissolved by mutual consent decree dated 22.07.2011.

Learned APP, on the other hand, submits that after filing the charge-sheet, charges have been framed against the petitioners and the case is pending for prosecution evidence.

Learned APP has further submitted that if this Court is inclined to quash the FIR, heavy costs should be imposed upon the petitioners, as in this process the government machinery has been pressed into and precious public time has been consumed.

Keeping in view the settlement deed dated 06.01.2011, the dissolution of marriage by mutual consent decree dated 22.07.2011 and the statement of respondent No. 2 as she is no more interested in pursuing the matter, therefore in the interest of justice, I quash the aforesaid FIR No. 20/2008 registered at P.S. CWC Nanak Pura against all the petitioners with consequent criminal proceedings emanating thereto.

Though, I find force in the submissions of learned APP regarding imposing costs upon petitioners, however, keeping their financial position into view, I refrain from imposing costs upon them.

Accordingly, Crl.M.C. No. 842/2012 is allowed.

Dasti.