Full Text
CRLM.C. 2622/2011
SANJEEV VERMA & ORS Petitioners
Through : |V|r. Sunil Sharma, Adv. for petitioner No.l to 6.
Mr. Anupam Sharma, Adv. for petitioner No.2.
STATE
Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State with SI Ram Niwas, CAW Cell.
North East
21^09.2011
ORDER
1. Notice.
2. Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.
3. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR NO. 244 dated 01.05.2010 a case under Section 498-A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code was registered at P.S. Shahadra on the 2011:DHC:13033 > complaint of the petitioner No.7 Smt. Poonam Verma.
4. Further submits, a settlement has been arrived at between the petitioner No.l Shri Sanjeev Verma, husband and the petitioner No.7 Smt. Poonam Verma. Pursuant to the said settlement, vide order dated 30.04.2011, the marriage between the petitioner No.l and 7 has been dissolved vide decree dated 30.04.2011 by mutual consent.
5. Further submits that the petitioner No. 7 does not want to pursue the case further, therefore, the aforesaid FIR may be quashed.
6. Petitioner No. 7 Smt. Poonam Verma appeared in person with her counsel Shri Anupam Sharma, who has identified her as Smt. Poonam Verma. The concerned 10 SI Ram Niwas, CAW Cell, North East has also identified her.
7. Petitioner No. 7 submits that she has settled all the issues qua the present FIR and she does not want to pursue the case further.
8. Petitioner No.7 has already received T 50,000/- at the time of dissolution of marriage on 30.04.2011. She has received the balance amount of f 50,000/- in the Court itself vide pay order No.034620 dated 24.05.2011 drawn on Bank of M India, Shahdara Branch, Delhi without any prejudice. The said amount is in lieu of maintenance/alimony etc. and nothing remains in the aforesaid FIR against the petitioners No. 1 to 6.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid settlement and the dissolution of the marriage, in the interest of justice I quash the aforesaid FIR No. 244 dated 01.05.2010 under Section 498-A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code registered at P.S. Shahadra and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
10. Ld. APP for the State submits that the charge sheet has already been filed in the trial court and the charges are yet to be framed. Further submits that while quashing the FIR costs should be imposed on the petitioners No. 1 to 6.
11. I find force in the submission of the Id. APP for the State. However, keeping in view the financial position of the petitioner, I defer in imposing the costs on the petitioners NO. 1 to 6.
12. CRLM.C. 2622/2011 is allowed.
SURESH KAIT, J SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 RS