Saurabh Vij v. State and Another

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioners are seeking to quash the FIR No.46/2010 dated 07.05.2010 registered at Police Station Crime (Women Cell), Nanakpura, New Delhi, under Section 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the complaint of Mrs. Kirti.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the compromise has already taken place between the petitioners and the respondent No.2, therefore, the respondent No.2 does not wish 2011:DHC:12174;~.---' to to pursue the case further. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that vide decree dated 23.04.2011, the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 has been dissolved under Section 13(b)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1985.

3. Respondent No.2, Mrs. Kirti, daughter of Sh. Sanjeev Kalra is present in Court with her counsel and is identified by her counsel. She submits that she has settled all the disputes qua the aforesaid FIR and she does not want to pursue the case further.

4. As per the settlement, the petitioner No.1 had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- to the respondent No.2. The same is being given to the respondent No.2. The respondent no.2 has received the aforesaid amount by way of a Pay Order No.298104 dated 20.05.2011 drawn on Andhra Bank, Plot No.298, Road No.44, Rajdhani Enclave, New Delho-110034 in her favour.

5. As per the settlement, the total amount of Rs.3,60,000/- has been paid to the respondent no.2 by the petitioner No.1. The marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has been dissolved and the respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the case further.

6. Therefore, in the interest or justice, I quash the aforesaid FIR and the proceedings emanating thereto.

7. Learned APP for the State submits that after registJ the FIR, the matter has been investigated, charger-sheet has been prepared and the same has- already been filed in the Court. The charges against the petitioners are yet to be framed. In this manner, the Government machinery has been used and the precious time of the Court has also been consumed.

8. Learned APP for the State further submits that while quashing the FIR, the petitioners should be burdened with heavy costs.

9. I find force in the submission of learned APP for the State. While quashing the FIR, I impose costs of Rs.25,000/- on petitioner No.1 who is a qualified B.Tech and earning Rs.50,000-Rs.55,000/per month from his employer.

10. The petitioner no.2, Shri Sunil Vij is working as a Chief Manager in Air India and earning Rs.60,000/- per month. Therefore, I impose costs of Rs.15,000/- on petitioner No.2. The total costs of Rs.40,000/- shall be deposited by the petitioners No.1 and 2 with the School for Deaf and Dumb Children, Daryaganj, New Delhi within -~ two weeks from today. The proof of the same shall be placed on record.

11. I desist from imposing costs on petitioner No.3, being a housewife, and petitioner No.4, who is the sister of petitioner No.1. f i' '',. 1'1 1 i. I I• I I L I 1~ !:: 'f~r:;-;; Ul E I... Q) "' " "' Q) >...0 ro Q)..c ·+-' c "C Q) s: ro Ul c ·_p:;::; Q) 0.. Ul..c I- N r-1 r-1 r-1 N.. co a:: w I:Q ~ w.... c. w~ ln>