Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 3260/2011
JUDGMENT
Through : Mr. Tanveer A. Khan, Adv.
Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for State Mr. Anil Hooda, Adv. for R-2
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers NO may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO in the Digest? SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Ld. counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No.113 dated 13.05.2008 under Section 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2 at PS Jamia Nagar.
2. Further submits that vide settlement dated 29.07.2011 respondent No.2 has already compromised the matter with the 2011:DHC:5053 petitioners.
3. As per the settlement ì.70,000/- was to be paid to the respondent No.2.
4. Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court and she is identified by her counsel.
5. Respondent No.2 submits that she has received ì.70,000/-. She further states that she does not want to pursue the case further and has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.
6. Keeping in view the settlement dated 29.07.2011 and statement of respondent No.2, I quash FIR No.113 dated 13.05.2008 under Section 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2 at PS Jamia Nagar
6. Ld. APP submits that charge-sheet has already been filed and the case is pending before the prosecution evidence. She also submits that while quashing the FIR heavy cost be imposed on the petitioners.
7. Though 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 the petitioners.
8. CRL.M.C. 3260/2011 is allowed.
9. Dasti.