Vijay Kumar Bansal and Another vs State and Another

Suresh Kait, J.—Learned counsel for petitioners submit that vide FIR No. 36/2011 dated 07.01.2011 case u/s 498/406/34 Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioners on complaint of respondent No. 2/ complainant at Police Station Crime (Women) Cell, Nanakpura, New Delhi.

Further submitted that vide settlement deed dated 22.07.2011, all the issues qua the aforementioned FIR has been resolved between the parties.

As per the settlement, petitioner No. 1 had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 02.00Lacs and return the household articles to respondent No. 2 towards permanent alimony as well as past and future maintenance of respondent No. 2/complainant & their daughter, who is in her custody.

It is further agreed that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid in the form of FDR in the name of their minor daughter Mansi with the provision of automatic renewal till attaining 18 years of age by their daughter at the time of first motion proceedings of mutual consent divorce, which has been received by respondent No. 2.

It is further agreed that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- in the form of FDR with above stipulation and another sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the name of respondent no. 2 shall be paid at the time of quashing of the FIR.

Petitioner No. 1 has handed over one FDR dated 06.02.2012 drawn on Bank of India, in the name of minor daughter Mansi and one draft drawn on Punjab National Bank bearing No. 984928 dated 30.01.2012 in favor of respondent No. 2, both for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- each. Same has been received by respondent No. 2 today in the Court without any protest.

As per the settlement, it is also agreed between the parties that remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid by petitioner No. 1 to R-2 at the time of second motion proceedings of divorce by mutual consent.

Respondent No. 2, is present in the Court with her learned counsel Ms. Deepa Rawat, who duly identifies as respondent No. 2. In addition, IO/ASI Jagmeshwar Dayal also identified her as respondent No. 2.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 on instructions submits that since she received amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-as agreed in the settlement dated 22.07.2011, therefore, she is no more interested to pursue her case against the petitioners. Further, she has no objection, if the FIR mentioned above, is quashed.

Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned APP on the other hand submitted that after registration of the FIR, matter is pending investigation and charge-sheet has not been finalized because of the fact that in between parties had compromised the matter. It is further submitted that if this Court is inclined to quash the FIR, heavy costs may be imposed upon the petitioners as in the process, government machinery has been pressed into and precious public time has been consumed.

Keeping the settlement dated 22.07.2011; first motion petition already allowed and the statement of respondent No. 2 that she is no more interested in pursuing her case, therefore, in the interest of justice, FIR No. 36/2011 registered against the petitioners at police station Crime (Women) Cell, Nanakpura, New Delhi is hereby quashed.

Though, I find force in the submission of learned APP regarding putting the petitioners to some terms, however, keeping their financial position into view, I refrain in imposing any costs upon them.

Consequently, Criminal M.C. No. 332/2012 is allowed and stands disposed of.