CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 11 DEL CK 0070

Rajbala Pundir vs State and Another

Delhi High Court · Decided on 30 November 2011 · Citation: (2012) 1 AD 165

HON’BLE JUDGES
Suresh Kait, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal M.C. 3916 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 332 words

Suresh Kait, J.

CRL. M.A. 18455/2011 (Exemption)

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CRL. M.C. 3916/2011

1.

Notice issued. Mr. Naveen Sharma, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of State.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR No. 04 dated 02.01.2006, a case u/s 324 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at P.S. Badarpur against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent No.2.

3.

He further submits that respondent No.2 has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioner vide compromise deed dated 13.11.2011.

4.

Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the court today. She has been duly identified by her counsel Mr. Chakravarti Pal, Advocate and IO/SI Girraj Singh, P.S. Badarpur, Delhi. She submits that she does not want to pursue the case further and submits that, she has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide complaint of complainant/petitioner in Criminal M.C. 3953/2011, a complaint case No. 720/1 was filed against respondent No.2/complainant herein in the court of Sh. Sunil Beniwal, MM, Saket under Sections 279/380/356/427/451/506 Indian Penal Code, 1860, P.S. Badarpur. Vide compromise dated 13.11.2011, the above matter has also been settled between the parties.

6.

Learned APP for State submits that the Charge-sheet has been filed in the court but charges are yet to be framed in the matter. In the circumstances, as Government Machinery has been pressed and precious time of the court has been consumed, therefore, heavy costs may be imposed upon the petitioners while quashing the FIR.

7.

I find force in the submissions made by learned APP for State but I refrain myself from imposing costs as the petitioner is a Home-maker and is not earning anything.

8.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I quash the FIR-04/2006, P.S. Badarpur and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.

9.

Criminal M.C. 3916/2011 is allowed.

10.

No order as to costs.

11.

Dasti.

CRL. M.A. 18456/2011

The application is disposed of as infructuous.