Anil Sakkarwal and Others vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr

Suresh Kait, J.—Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR no.375 dated 21.12.2009, case u/s 406/498A Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent no. 2 at PS-Shalimar Bagh. It is further submitted that Petitioners and respondent no. 2 entered into a settlement and respondent no. 2 has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR against all the petitioners.

Consequent to the settlement, a joint statement got recorded by petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 before the Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohini on 19.09.2011, whereby it is stated that petitioner no.1 agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- to respondent No. 2 (over and above a sum of Rs.98,000/- given by petitioner no. 1 to respondent no. 2 during the arguments on anticipatory bail application before the court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Rohini, Delhi.)

It is further submitted that petitioner no.1 has paid the entire amount to respondent no. 2, Rs.4 Lacs were given paid out of the said settlement amount and Rs.1.50 Lacs has been paid to her today in the Court by way of Banker''s Cheque issued by State Bank of India bearing no. 598720 dated 16.01.2012.

Respondent no. 2 is personally present in court with her father namely Mr. Sohan Lal. SI Anil Kumar, IO of the case identified her as Smt. Sarika, complainant in the case.

Respondent no. 2 has submitted that she has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR and received the entire amount as settled out of Court. She further submits that consequent to the settlement mentioned above, marriage between her and petitioner no. 1 was dissolved by mutual consent vide Decree of Divorce dated 19.09.2011, therefore, she is no more interested to pursue the case further. If the FIR referred above is quashed, she has no objection.

Ld. APP on the other hand submits that after investigation, chargesheet has been filed by the State. However, charges are yet to be framed. He further submits that if this Court is inclined to quash the FIR referred above, heavy costs be imposed upon the petitioner as in this process, Govt. machinery has been pressed into and precious public time has been consumed.

Keeping the joint statement dated 19.09.2011 made before Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohini, Statement of respondent no. 2 in this court as she is not further interested to pursue the case, Decree of Divorce dated 19.09.2011 and, in the interest of justice, FIR no.375 dated 21.12.2009 registered at PS-Shalimar Bagh is hereby quashed with emanating proceedings there to.

Though, I find force in the submission of ld. APP on costs, however, keeping in view the financial position of the petitioners, I refrain from imposing costs upon them.

Accordingly, Crl. M.C. 209/2012 is allowed. Dasti.