Hemant Kumar and Others vs State and Others

Suresh Kait, J.—Learned counsel for parties have jointly stated that vide FIR No.136/2010 dated 06.05.2010 case u/s 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners at police station Seemapuri, Delhi on complaint of respondent No.2.

It is further submitted that vide compromise deed dated 06.07.2010, respondent No.2 has settled all the issues qua aforementioned FIR and she is no more interested to pursue her case against the petitioners. Consequent to said compromise, marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had also been dissolved by mutual consent, vide divorce decree dated 25.08.2011.

Learned counsel for parties further jointly submitted that petitioner No.1 had agreed to pay Rs. 8.00Lacs to respondent No.2. Out of which an amount of Rs. 6.40Lacs had already been paid to respondent No.2. Today an amount of Rs. 1.60 Lacs - vide two draft Nos.014353 and 014354 for Rs. 1.00 Lacs & Rs. 0.60 Lac respectively both dated 19.01.2012 drawn on HDFC Bank in favour of respondent No.2 - has been paid to her, in the Court, which has been accepted by her without any protest.

Respondent No.2 present in the Court with her learned counsel Mr. Sunil Kumar, who duly identifies her. In addition, she has produced her driving licence bearing No. P05122005299848 issued by Transport Department, GNCT of Delhi on 24.012.2005 in her name. Original seen & returned to her. She has not rebutted as to what has been submitted by learned counsel for parties.

Further, learned counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions submits that she has settled all the issues with the petitioners qua aforementioned FIR and if the same is quashed, she has no objection thereto.

On the other hand, Mr. Satish Mishra, learned counsel on behalf of Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned APP for State, on instructions submits that consequent to settlement between the parties, charge-sheet has not been prepared due to the fact that the parties arrived on settlement.

Further he submits that if this Court is inclined to quash the aforementioned FIR, petitioners may be put to some terms, as in this process, government machinery has been pressed into and precious public time has been consumed.

Keeping the above discussion into view and the facts that marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had already been dissolved and she is no more interested in pursuing her case, in the interest of justice, FIR No.136/2010 registered against the petitioners at police station Seemapuri, Delhi is hereby quashed. 9. Though, I find force in the submission of learned counsel for State, regarding putting the petitioners to terms, however, as petitioners are from lower strata of society, I refrain in imposing any costs upon them.

Accordingly, Criminal M.C.No.222/2012 is allowed and stands disposed of.