Harvinder Singh & Ors v. State & Anr

1. Issue notice.

2. Ms.Ritu Gauba, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr.Yogesh Yadav, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No.2

3. FIR No. 98 dated 21.04.2010 was registered against petitioner No.l (husband of respondent No.2), petitioner No.2 (nnother-in-law of respondent No.2) and petitioner No.3 (father- CRLM.C. 2662/2011 2011:DHC:9235 in-law of respondent No.2) under Sections 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P.S. Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter has already been settled between respondent No.2 and petitioner No.l and decree of divorce dated 07.04.2011 has already been granted under Section 13 B (II) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 by mutual consent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the matter has already been settled between respondent No.2/complainant and the petitioners, therefore the present FIR may be quashed.

5. Respondent No.2 Ms. Sonia, D/o Sh.Roshan Lai, who is personally present in the Court with her counsel Mr.Yogesh Yadav submits that, all the issues have been settled qua the aforesaid FIR, therefore, she does not wish to pursue the case further. She has no objection if the aforesaid FIR is quashed.

6. Learned APR for the State submits that the charge has been framed in the aforesaid matter and case is fixed for recording prosecution evidence before the learned Trial Court.

7. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that the total alimony has been settled at ^ 1.60 lacs out of which ? 1.10 lacs has already been paid to respondent No.2 and balance sum of ^ 50,000/- is handed over to respondent No.2 today in court by way of Bank Draft bearing No. 067841 dated 16.05.2011 drawn on Bank of India, New Delhi. Respondent No.2 has accepted the same without any protest.

8. The respondent No.2, who is personally present in the Court has been identified by the Investigating Officer. Additionally, a photocopy of identity card, issued by the Election Commissioner of India has been annexed at page 57 of the petition.

9. Keeping in view the above facts; a settlement was made between the parties, the marriage between petitioner No.l and respondent No.2 has already been resolved and respondent No.2 does not want to pursue the case further, therefore, in the interest of justice, I quash the FIR No.98 dated 21.04.2010 registered atTilak Nagar.

10. Though, the Government machinery has been used and precious time of the Court has been consumed, however keeping in view the financial position of the petitioners, Idefer form imposing tine cost on the petitioners.

11. CrI.M.C.No.2662/2011 is allowed.

12. Dasti.

AUGUST 12, 2011 sa SURESH KAIT, J.