Full Text
'RAJU SARASWAT & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Anil Tomar, Advocate VCTSUS STATE
^ .... Respondent ' Through Mr. Naveen Sharma, APP for the
State , And "{ cRL. M.C. 1s6B/20rL. RAJU SARASWAT & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Anil Tomar, Advocate VCTSUS STATE ..... ResPondent
Through Mr. Naveen Sharma, APP for the State
ORDER olo ) - 3O.O9.2O11 \-/ 1. These are two petitions for quashing of two FIRs.
JUDGMENT
2. Crl, M.C. 1568/2011 pertains to quashing of FIR No. 268/2005 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC registered at P.S. Sarojini Nagar in respect of which charge sheet has already been filed.
3. The ground for quashing of FIR is that the petitioner no.1 and the petitioner no.4 have obtained divorce on the basis of mutual 2011:DHC:10124 ( t '{ consent from the' Competent Court on 04.06.20II. It is also stated that the petitioners have paid a sum of t[7] lacs towards the full and final settlement of the entire claim of the petitioner no. 4 therefore, the aforesaid FIR against the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 may be quashed.
4. The petition is supported by the affidavits of Mr. Raju Saraswat, petitioner no.1,,. Smt. Kusum Saraswat, petitioner no.2 and 'ta Mr. Dharveer Saraswat, petitioner no.3 as well as that of Smt. Neetu Pandey, petitioner no.4. Petitioner nos. 1 and 4 are present in Court today. Parties are duly identified by their respective counsel. So far as the petitioner nos.[2] and 3 are concerned they are not present.
5. Since the parties have settled all their dispute, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the aforesaid FIR and the consequent charge sheet pending.
6. Accordingly, FIR No. 268/2005 under Section 49BA/406/34 IPC registered at P.S. Sarojini Nagar and the consequent proceedings pending bgfore the learned Metropolitan Magistrate are quashed. I'
7. So far as, Crl. M.C. L559/2011 is concerned, it pertains to FIR bearing no.326/2005 under Section 4201468/47L IPC registered at P.S.Sarojini Nagar at the instance of petitioner no.2, Mr. Rewati Raman Pandey, father of Ms. Neetu Pandey who was the wife of Mr. Raju Saraswat. The allegations in the petition was that Raju Saraswat, petitioner no.1 (in Crl. M.C.1559/2OtI) had forged a divorce deed by,'/ t V putting the signatures of his erstwhile wife, Neetu Pandey. Since, matrimonial dispute between the petitioner no.1, Raju Saraswat and his wife Neetu Pandey has already been settled and the FIR registered under Section 498A/406/34 IPC has been quashed, I feel that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present FIR alive.
9. The petitioner no.1 is visited with a token of costs of t[2],000/- to be deposited with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. The receipt of the deposited amount shall be filed before the Trial Court.
10. In view of the above said, the petitions are disposed of. v.K. SHALI,J SEPTEMBER 30/ 20LL/b a-.