Delhi High Court Suleman & Ors. vs State & Anr on 19 March, 2012Author: Suresh Kait

$~24

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 963/2012

% Judgment delivered on:19th March, 2012

SULEMAN & ORS. ….. Petitioners Through: Mr. Himal Akhtar, Adv.

versus

STATE & ANR ….. Respondents Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for

the State/R-1

Mohd. Jamel Ikhlee, Adv. for

respondent No.2 with

1st I.O. SI Darshana and present

IO SI Savita

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

+ Crl.M.A. 3370/2012 (exemption)

Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 963/2012

1 Notice issued.

2 Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State/R-1. 3 Mohd. Jamel, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2/complainant Smt. Ruksana Begam.

4 With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties instant petition is taken up today for final disposal.

Crl.M.C.No.963/2012 Page 1 of 3 5 Learned counsel for petitioners submits that vide FIR No. 355 dated 25.04.2007 a case for the offence punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the Petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2 at P.S. Nangloi. 6 It is further submitted that thereafter, with the intervention of their family members and other relatives, a settlement has been arrived at between petitioner No.1/accused and respondent No.2/complainant and all the issues qua aforesaid FIR have been settled, therefore, respondent No.2/complainant is no more interested in pursuing the case further against the petitioners.

7 It is further submitted that as per the aforesaid settlement respondent No.2 is residing in a separate rented accommodation with her three children and petitioner No.1 is paying all expenses and shall continue to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.2 as a monthly expenses and all kind of expenses pertaining to three minor children.

8 Learned counsel further submits that it has been also agreed that respondent No.2 can use the amount paid by petitioner No.1 at the time of his bail to respondent No.2, as per her free will. 9 Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court with her counsel namely Mohd. Jamel Ikhlee, Advocate and she is identified by first Investigating Officer of the case namely SI Darshana and the present IO SI Savita as well.

10 Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 on instruction submits that she has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR against all the petitioners and pursuant to the aforesaid arrangement she is no more

Crl.M.C.No.963/2012 Page 2 of 3 interested to pursue the case. Therefore, she has no objection if the above-mentioned FIR is quashed.

11 Learned APP for the State submits that since the complainant/respondent No.2 has arrive at a settlement with petitioner No.1, pursuant to which she is already living separately with her three children, so the FIR mentioned above and emanating proceedings thereof may be quashed.

12 Keeping in view the settlement mentioned above, statement of the Respondent No.2 who is no more interested to pursue the case further, in the interest of justice I quash the aforesaid FIR N355 dated 25.04.2007 registered at P.S. Nangloi with all the emanating proceedings thereto.

13. Crl. M.C. 963/2012 is allowed accordingly.

SURESH KAIT, J

MARCH 19, 2012

nn

Crl.M.C.No.963/2012 Page 3 of 3