Full Text
CRLM.C. 3067/2011
MANISH KUMAR & ORS Petitioner
Through : Mr.Sanjiv Bahl & Mr.El<lavya Bahl, Adv.
Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for State.
Mr.Dinesh Kumar Chawla, Adv for R-2 with respondent in person.
14.09.2011 Crl.M.A.No.l0859/2011(exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.
ORDER
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No.4/2007 dated 04.01.2007 a case under Section 498A/406/506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2 at police station, Vasant Vihar. 2011:DHC:12250 0^
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.2 has amicably settled all the disputes qua the aforesaid FIR with the petitioners and she does not wish to pursue the case further. The petitioner No.l has agreed to pay a sum of ?7.00 lacs to respondent No.2n out of which, an amount of ^2.00lac has already been paid and an amount of ^S.OOIacs remains to be paid. The marriage between ^ petitioner No.l and respondent No.2 has been dissolved vide decree dated 26.07.20ll.
3. Respondent No.2, who is personally present in the Court with her learned counsel Mr.Dinesh Kumar Chawla, Advocate, who has duly identified her. Additionally, she has produced her original voter identity card bearing No.DL-02/009/129728 ^ issued by Election Commission of India in her name. Original seen and returned to respondent No.2.
4. Petitioner No.l has brought a draft of ^S.OOIacs bearing No.394239 dated 25.08.2011 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Pusa Campus, New Delhi - 110012 in favour of respondent No.2. The draft has been accepted by respondent No.2 without any I > protest, today in tine Court itself.
5. Respondent No.2 submits that she has settled all the disputes qua the aforesaid FIR and she does not wish to pursue the case further. She submits that she has no objection, if the present FIR is quashed.
6. Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learned APR for State submits that after filing of the charge-sheet, charge has been framed against all the petitioners under Section 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the case is pending for prosecution evidence.
7. Further submitted that the government machinery has been used and the precious time of the Court has been consumed, therefore, while quashing the FIR in question, ) / heavy costs should be imposed upon the petitioners.
8. Keeping the dissolution of marriage between petitioner No.l and respondent No.2 and the settlement arrived at between the parties, in the interest of justice, FIR No.4/2007 under Section 498A/406/506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered against the petitioners at police station Vasant Vihar and the proceedings emanating arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
9. I, impose a costs of ?10,000/- to be deposited by petitioner No.l in favour of 'Delhi Child Welfare Fund', at Child Protection Unit, Department of Women and Child Development, 1, Canning Lane, K. G. Marg, New Delhi, within a week from today and proof thereof be placed on the record.
10. Petitioner No.2 has been retired from government service, having no other source of income except pension and petitioner No.3 is a 'house-maker' having no independent source of income. Therefore, I refrain in imposing any costs upon them.
11. Accordingly, Criminal M.C.No.3067/2011 is allowed in above terms.
12. Dasti.
SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 Mi SURESH KAIT, J I -tr-r C & $-21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRLM.C. 3067/2011 MANISH KUMAR & ORS Petitioner Through: |V|r. Sanjiv Bahl, Adv.
VERSUS
JUSTICE SURESH KAIT ORDER % 27.09.2011 CRL. M.A. 11561/2011(Correction)
1. Vide this application, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that while disposing of the petition, in para 2 of the order dated 14.09.2011, some facts were wrongly recorded, as the disputes qua the FIR has been settled for a sum of Rs.[7] lacs, whereas the total amount of settlement is Rs.l[2] lacs.
2. I note, a typographical mistake has taken place in the order dated 14.09.2011 in para 2, wherin sum of Rs.[7] lacs has been wrongly recorded, instead of Rs.l[2] lacs. It has been further wrongly typed as an amount of Rs.[2] lacs has already been paid and an amount of Rs.[5] lacs remains to be paid, whereas the amount of Rs.[7] lacs has already been out of total settled amount of Rs.l[2] lacs and Rs.[5] lacs remains to be paid by petitioner No.l to respondent No.2/complainant.
4. Accordingly, prayer A of the application is allowed and para 2 of the order dated 14.09.2011 be read as under "The total settlement amount Is Rs.12,00,000/out of which a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- had been paid at the time of recording of the settlement of the second motion. The petitioner No. 1 has paid the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to respondent No. 2 vide Demand Draft.".
5. The application is allowed on the above terms.
SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 j SURESH KAITJ