SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sanjay Jain & Others vs State & Another on 28 March, 2012

Delhi High Court Sanjay Jain & Others vs State & Another on 28 March, 2012Author: Suresh Kait

$~9

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2066/2011

% Judgment delivered on: 28th March, 2012 SANJAY JAIN & OTHERS ….. Petitioners Through : Mr. Anil Dabas, Adv.

versus

STATE & ANOTHER ….. Respondents Through : Mr.Navin Sharma, APP.

Mr. R.S. Sharma, Adv. for R2.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1 Vide the instant petition the petitioners have sought quashing of FIR No. 43/2005 registered at P.S. Preet Vihar, under Sections 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

2 Further submits that vide Compromise Deed dated 18.01.2005, respondent No.2/complainant has settled all the issues qua the above mentioned FIR against the petitioners for a total sum of Rs.5,50,000/-, which Crl.M.C.No.2066/2011 Page 1 of 3 she has already received.

3 Further submits that vide decree dated 31.01.2011, an ex-parte divorce has been granted in favour of respondent No.2, thereafter she has remarried. 4 Respondent No.2 is present in person. She has been duly identified by IO/SI Arujun Singh.

5 Respondent No.2 submits that she has settled all the issues qua the above mentioned FIR and has received entire settlement amount. Thus, she is not more interested to pursue the case. Therefore, she has no objection if the FIR is quashed.

6 Ld. APP for State on the other hand submits that the Chargesheet has been filed in the trial court and charges are yet to be framed. 7 Learned APP further submits that if this court is inclined to quash the FIR in the present case, then heavy costs may be imposed upon the petitioners as in the process, the government machinery has been pressed into and precious public time has been consumed. 8 Though I find force in the submissions made by ld. APP for State on costs, but keeping in view the poor financial conditions of the petitioners and facts of the case, I refrain imposing costs upon them. 9 Keeping in view the above discussion, statement of respondent No.2 into view and in the interest of justice, I quash FIR No. 43/2005 registered Crl.M.C.No.2066/2011 Page 2 of 3 at P.S. Preet Vihar, Delhi and all the proceedings emanating therefrom. 10 Criminal M.C. 2066/2011 is disposed of on above terms.

11. Dasti.

SURESH KAIT, J

MARCH 28, 2012

j

Crl.M.C.No.2066/2011 Page 3 of 3

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation