AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 351 wordsSuresh Kait, J.
Crl. M.C. 4223/2011
Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has sought to quash FIR No. 78 dated 20.01.2004 registered u/s 406/498A/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 at PS-Prashant Vihar against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No. 2 with emanating proceedings thereto. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide Compromise Deed dated 11.10.2004, respondent No. 2 has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR. In pursuance to the said compromise, respondent No. 2 has received the entire settlement amount of Rs. 70,000/- without any protest. Thus the instant petition may be allowed.
Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the court with her Counsel namely Sh. Subodh Kumar. Ld. Counsel for respondent No. 2 does not rebut the contention of ld. Counsel for petitioner and on instruction submits that husband of respondent No. 2 has already expired and she has remarried with some other person. He further submits that respondent No. 2 is no more interested to pursue the case further and if the FIR referred above with emanating proceedings thereto are quashed, she has no objection.
On the other hand Ld. APP for the State submits that after filing the charge sheet, charges framed against the petitioners and the case is pending for prosecution evidence.
Ld. APP further submits that if this Court is inclined to allow the instant petition, some costs may be imposed upon the petitioners as in this process govt. machinery has been pressed into and precious public time has been consumed.
Keeping the settlement dated 11.10.2004, statement of respondent No. 2 into view as she is no more interested to pursue the instant case and in the interest of justice, FIR No. 78 dated 20.01.2004 registered at PS-Prashant Vihar with emanating proceedings thereto are hereby quashed.
Though I find force in the submission of ld. APP, however, keeping the financial position of the petitioners into view, I refrain in imposing costs upon them.
Accordingly, Crl. M.C. 4223/2011 is allowed. Since the main petition is allowed, Crl.M.A.19497/2011 (Stay) become infructuous and disposed of as such.