Shiv Shankar and Others vs State and Others

Suresh Kait, J.—Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR No.90/05 was registered on 09.03.2005 under Sections 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 at PS Gandhi Nagar against the petitioner No.1 (husband) and his relatives petitioner Nos.2 to 4.

Further submits that vide settlement dated 22.01.2010 respondent No.2 Anuradha Verma D/o Kanhaiya Lal has settled all the issues qua aforesaid FIR and that she does not want to pursue the case further. In addition, decree of divorce dated 06.09.2010 has been issued on mutual consent.

Ms. Anuradha Verma/respondent No.2 is personally present in Court with her father namely Kanhaiya Lal. For identification she has produced Election Card bearing No.TLE 1375302, Original of which is seen and returned. She submits that in pursuance to settlement dated 22.01.2010, marriage between the petitioner No.1 and her/respondent No.2 has been dissolved vide decree dated 06.09.2010.

She further states that she has received the entire amount as per the settlement. She does not want to pursue the case further. She has no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed.

Keeping in view the statement of respondent No.2 and settlement dated 22.01.2010, I quash FIR No.90/05 registered on 09.03.2005 u/s 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 at PS Gandhi Nagar against the petitioner No.1 (husband) and his relatives petitioner Nos.2 to 4.

Ld. APP for State submits that the charges against the petitioners have already been framed and the case is pending for prosecution for evidence. She submits that 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.

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.

CRL.M.C. 2403/2011 is allowed.