Full Text
CRLM.C. 2314/2011
DINESH @ DINESH KUMAR &ORS Petitioner Tlirough: i^lr.Z.S. Solanl<i and Mr.Y. K.
Solanki , Advs.
Through: Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for R-1 with ASI Yogender Singh PS
Punjabi Bagh in person.
Mr.S. P. Sharma, Adv for R-2 with respondent No.2 in person.
05.08.2011 Crl.M.A.No.8488/2011 texemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.
ORDER
1. Vide FIR No.66/2010 a case under Section 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at police station Punjabi Bagh against the petitioner No.l the husband and petitioner Nos.[2] to 10 on the complaint of respondent No.2.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2011:DHC:10827 parties have arrived at a mutual settlement, whicli reads as under:- "That as per the settlement, the petitioner No.l had agreed to pay a sum of f[3],15,000/- to the petitioner No.2 towards her full and final settlement and all claims against the petitioner No.l and his family members. Out of the said sum of ^3,15,000/-, a sum of f50,000/- has already been paid by the petitioner No.l to the petitioner No.2 at the time of settlement before the Mediation Centre and f65,000/- at the time ofgrant of bail to the mother of the petitioner No.l before the Hon'bie High Court ofDelhi. Asum of n,00,000/- has already paid by the petitioner No.l to the petitioner No.2 at the time of recording of statements of the parties before the Hon'bie Court in the petition under Section 13- B(l) of HM Act for dissolution of marriage by way of mutual consent. The balance sum of f50,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner No.l to the petitioner No.2 at the time of recording of statement of the parties before the Hon'bie Court in the petition under Section 13-B(2) of the H.M. Act for dissolution of marriage by way of mutual, consent and the balance sum of f50,000/- shall be payable at the time of disposal and hearing of the petition for quashing of FiR No.66/2010 lodged by the petitioner No.2 against the petitioner No.1 and his family members."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that after the receipt of the aforesaid amount of ^3,15,000/- in the above terms, respondent No.2 have no claim of any nature whatsoever, such as maintenance, istridhan din[6] alimony etc.
4. Respondent No.2 Meenu d/o Shh Nand Kishore, r/o WZ-605, Madipur Village, New Delhi - 110063 is personally present in the Court, who has been duly identified by her counsel Mr.S. P. Sharma, Advocate. She submits that the decree of divorce by mutual consent has already been granted vide order dated 01.06.2011 and she has settled all the claims against the petitioners.
5. She further submits that she does not wish to pursue her case in the present FIR and she has no objection, if the same is quashed. Balance amount of ^50,000/-, as per the settlement, has been paid today in the Court in cash, which respondent No.2 has accepted without any protest.
6. Keeping the settlement into view and the fact that the marriage has already been dissolved between the parties, respondent No.2/complainant is no more interested in pursuing her case further, I therefore, quash the FIR No.66/2010 under Section 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at police station Punjabi Bagh and the proceedings emanating thereform.
7. Considering the financial conditions of the petitioners, I defer in imposing any costs upon them. /
8. In view of above, Criminal MC. No.2314/2011 stands allowed.
9. Dasti.
AUGUST 05, 2011 Mk SURESH KAIT, J