Full Text
CRL.M.C. 3124/2011
HARISH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. Satish Chander, Adv. with petitioners in person
Mr. Kartickay Mathur, Adv. for R-2.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
19.09.2011 Cri.M.A.11072/2011 Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.
ORDER
1. Issue notice. Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1/State. Mr. Kartickay Mathur, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2. --', 2011:DHC:13044
2. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR No.367/10 a case was registered under Section 498A/406 Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2 at PS Narela.
3. Ld. counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent No.2 has amicably settled all the disputes qua the aforesaid FIR against the petitioners.
4. As per settlement, petitioner No.1 had agreed to pay {1,10,000/- to respondent No.2 out of which {72,000/- has already been paid and remaining amount of {38,000/- is being paid in the Court.
5. Respondent No.2 is present in person and she is identified by her counsel. She further states that she has no objection if the present FIR is quashed since the matter has been settled and decree of divorce dated 06.06.2011 has been passed, by which marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has been dissolved by mutual consent under Section 13(8)(2) of Hindu Marriage Act.
6. Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that she has already received the amount of {72,000/- and she has received {38,000/- in the Court itself.
7. Ld. APP for State states that the matter is under investigation, therefore, charge-sheet has not been filed.
8. Since marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has been dissolved and the settlement has already taken place between the parties and that respondent No.2 has received the entire settlement amount of ~1,10,000/for maintenance and towards alimony, in the interest of justice I quash FIR No.367/10 registered under Section 498A/406 Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2 at PS Narela.
9. Petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 are tea vendors. Petitioner No.3 is a house-maker and has no personal earning. Keeping in view the financial position of the petitioners I defer imposing cost on the petitioners.
10. CRL.M.C. 3124/2011 is allowed in the above terms.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 vld SURESH KAIT, J