CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Harsh Preet Jolly and Another vs State and Another

Delhi High Court · Decided on 10 October 2011 · Citation: (2011) 10 DEL CK 0038

HON’BLE JUDGES
Suresh Kait, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 406, 498A
CASE NUMBER
Criminal M.C. 3367 of 2011
Ask AI about this case

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

13 paragraphs · 342 words

Suresh Kait, J.

Crl. M.A. 11972/2011

Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.

Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.

Crl. M.C. 3367/2011

1.

Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR No.310 was registered on 02.09.2010 u/s 498A/406 Indian Penal Code, 1860 at PS Jahangir Puri against the petitioners.

2.

Further submits that vide settlement dated 29.11.2010 respondent No.2 Shivani has settled all the issues qua aforesaid FIR and that she does not want to pursue the case further as she has received sum of Rs. 02.5 lakhs out of total settlement amount of Rs. 03.5 lakhs. The remaining amount of Rs. 01 lakh is being paid today in the Court and the same has been handed over to respondent No.2, who has accepted the same without any protest.

3.

Respondent No.2 Shivani D/o Kuldeep Sharma is personally present in Court with her father, and is identified by IO ASI Ved Prakash. She submits that in pursuance to settlement dated 29.11.2010 marriage between petitioner No.1 and herself has been dissolved vide decree of divorce dated 16.08.2011 by mutual consent.

4.

She further submits that as per the settlement dated 29.11.2010 entire amount i.e. Rs. 03.5 lakhs has already been received by her. She submits that she does not want to pursue the case further and has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

5.

Keeping in view the statement of respondent No.2 and settlement dated 29.11.2010, I quash FIR No.310 registered on 02.09.2010 u/s 498A/406 Indian Penal Code, 1860 at PS Jahangir Puri and emanating proceedings thereto against the petitioners.

6.

Ld. APP submits that investigation is on advance stage. The charge-sheet has yet to be filed. She submits that since Government machinery has been used and the precious time of the Court has also been consumed, therefore, cost should be imposed on the petitioners while quashing the FIR.

7.

I find force in the submission of ld. APP but keeping in view the financial position of the petitioners I refrain from imposing cost on them.

8.

Accordingly, CRL.M.C. 3367/2011 is allowed.