Full Text
CRLM.C. 2930/2011
R K SHARMA Petitioners
Through : Mr. Girdhari Singh, Adv.
Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for State |V|r. K K Sharma, Adv. for R-2
02.09.2011 Crl.M.A.10351/2011 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.C.2930/2011
ORDER
1. Notice. Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of State. Mr. K. K. Sharnna, Adv. accepts notice for respondent No.2.
2. Ld. counsel for the petitioners submits that FIR No.102 dated 25.04.2009 was registered under Section 420/468/471/120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioners at PS Paharganj on the complaint of respondent No.2, Kanhiya Lai. 2011:DHC:9771
3. Ld. counsel for the petitioners further subnnits that vide compromise deed dated 04.08.2011, the petitioners and respondent No.2 have settled their disputes qua the aforesaid FIR and respondent No.2 has been fully compensated with an amount of n,75,000/according to the settlement between them.
4. Respondent No.2 is present in person in Court and he is identified by his counsel. In addition he has produced his identity card issued by MTNL, Delhi vide HRD bearing No.D5000256 vide serial No.01013 valid upto 31.12.2012 which stands in his name. The original of the same has been seen and returned to him.
5. Respondent No.2 submits that he has settled the disputes qua the aforesaid FIR and he does not want to pursue the case further as he has received the total amount of ^1,75,000/- as compensation.
6. I note that in the present case, offence committed by the petitioner is an offence against the society, however, there is no loss to Government Exchequer or Government authority.
8. Since the matter has been compromised on 04.08.2011 and respondent No.2 does not want to prosecute the case any further, therefore, I quash the FIR No.102 dated 25.04.2009 registered under Section 420/468/471/120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioners at PS Paharganj on the complaint of respondent No.2, Kanhiya Lai.
7. Ld. APP submits that since respondent No.2 has come forward and raised voice against the petitioners and he has already received the total compensation amount of ?1,75,000/- from the petitioners, therefore, while quashing the FIR a heavy cost should be imposed on the petiti.oners for welfare purposes.
8. I find force in the submissions of Id. APP, therefore, I impose cost of ^1,00,000/- on each of the petitioners to be deposited for the welfare of the destitute women. I accordingly, direct the petitioners to deposit the cost in favour of 'Superintendent, Nirmal Chaya', Jail Road, Hari Nagar, Delhi within a period of one weel< from today. Proof of the same shall be placed on record.
9. CRL.M.C. 2930/2011 is allowed in the above terms.
10. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J SEPTEMBER 02, 2011 vid