Full Text
CRL.M.C. 2832/2011
MANDEEP SHARMA
Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Sanjeev Bhardwaj, Adv. along with Petitioner in person.
Mr. Parveen Chaudhary with Mr. N.K. Joshi, Advocates for
Respondent No.2 with Respondent No.2 in person.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
29.08.2011 Cri.M.C.No.2832/2011 )
ORDER
1. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR No.20/2008 dated 14.01.2008, a case under Section 498A/406/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Preet Vihar against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent No.2. ~ ~ -·~~ -.-~ -·-·, ~ I ' ' ~ I r;-,- 2011:DHC:9702 9--
2. Ld. counsel for the petitioner further submits that vide compromise dated 13.07.2011, the matter has been fully settled between the petitioner and respondent No.2. As per the terms of settlement, an amount of Rs.3,65,000/- is payable by the petitioner to respondent No.2 out of which a sum of Rs.2.50 lacs has already been paid. The balance amount of Rs.l.15 lacs is being paid to respondent No.2 today in Court.
3. The respondent No.2, Mrs. Surinder Kaur, daughter of Sh. Sulakhan Singh, is present in person with her counsel, namely, Mr. Parveen Chaudhary along with Mr. N.K. Joshi, who have identified her as Mrs. Surinder Kaur, wife of the petitioner.
4. Ld. counsel for respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.2 has received the total amount as per the compromise arrived at on 13.07.2011. They further submit that vide order dated 13.07.2011, the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2 has been dissolved under Section 138(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act with mutual consent.
5. The respondent No.2 submits that since she has settled all the disputes qua the aforesaid FIR, she has no objection if the present FIR is quashed. ~~ -·~ I ''"! --' -'< 1-~ ~-!.~.. r;,~,~
6. Keeping in view the dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 and the settlement arrived at between them; in the interest of justice, the present FIR and the proceedings emanating thereto are quashed.
7. Ld. APP for the State submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed in Court but the charges are yet to be framed.
8. No doubt that the precious time of the Court has been consumed, however, it is a fact that the petitioner is working on a meager salary of Rs.7,500/- and is also maintaining one minor child of Slf[2] years. Hence, keeping in view the poor financial status of the petitioner, I defer imposing cost on the petitioner.
9. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
AUGUST 29, 2011 vk ~ SURESH KAIT, J ~ I -·-~,-! ~?~ --~ -·-~,-!.• ~~ ~~j c_.~