Neeraj Suryavanshi & Ors. v. State & Anr.

1. Vide FIR No. 902/2005 a case under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC was registered against petitioner No. 1 and his relative petitioner No. 2, at Police Station Dabri.

2. Learned APP for the State submits that after framing of charge the case is now at the stage of prosecution evidence. She further states that the machinery of the Court has been used and also the precious time of the Court has also been consumed, hence, cost be imposed on the petitioner. CRL.M.C. 2555/2011 page 1 of[4]

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have dissolved their marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent dated gth June, 2011 and they have settled their disputes.

4. As per the settlement, the petitioner No. 1 was to pay ~8 lakhs, as full and final payment of all the claims of respondent No.2.

5. ~2 lakhs was paid to respondent No. 2 at the time of grant of first motion and ~3 lakhs was deposited at the time of second motion before the Additional Principal Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi. The first draft of ~2 lakhs was handed over to respondent No. 2, however, draft of ~3 lakhs is deposited with the Additional · Principal Judge, Rohini Courts. The remaining amount of ~3 lakhs is paid today in the Court by way of draft dated 12th July, 2011, bearing No. 006325 drawn on HDFC Bank, Janakpuri, Delhi which is in the name of Ms.Partibha. Respondent No. 2 has accepted this settlement without any protest.

6. Respondent No. 2 is present in person before the Court along with Ms. Malti, learned counsel, who submits that all the issues and claims have been settled qua FIR No. 902/2005. She CRL.M.C. 2555/2011 page 2 of[4] k I ' ~ I ~ ) further states that she does not want to pursue this case further. She also submits that she has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ~1,50,000/was deposited by the petitioners at the time of grant of bail. And as per the settlement entered between the parties, the same be released to the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on instructions, submits that she has no objection if the said amount is released in favour of the petitioner No.1.

9. Keeping in view the decree of divorce and the settlement entered into between the parties, as also the fact that respondent No. 2 does not want to pursue the case any further, I quash the aforesaid FIR.

10. I, accordingly, impose cost of ~25,000/-, to be paid by petitioner No. 1, in favour of Advocate's Welfare Fund, Delhi Bar Council, within seven days from today. The proof of deposit of the same be placed on record. CRL.M.C. 2555!2011 page 3 of[4] "' '~ I' ''i i:'

11. Accordingly, Crl. M.C. No. 2555/2011 is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

12. A copy of this order be given dasti.