Home > 498A, Under Mutual Agreement > Delhi HC quashes FIR after man agrees to pay Rs 1,000 monthly to son

Delhi HC quashes FIR after man agrees to pay Rs 1,000 monthly to son

 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI*

+ CRL.M.C.457/2012

Judgment delivered on:07th February, 2012

FIRASAT & ORS ….. Petitioners                                                                                  Through : Mr.Javed Khan, Adv.                                                                                                   versus                                                                                                                                                STATE & ANR ….. Respondents                                                                                                   Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State Mr. D.K. Singh, Adv.for R-2

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT,

J. (Oral)

Crl. M.A. 1585/2012 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C.457/2012

1. Notice.

2. Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.

3. Ld. Counsel for respondent No.2, Mr. D.K. Singh accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

5. Vide the instant petition, the petitioners have sought to quash FIR No. 103/2009 registered at PS Welcome, Delhi under Section 406/498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3&4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the proceedings pending before the trial court.

6. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that during the pendency of the case before the trial court, the respondent No.2 has amicably settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR with the petitioners vide MOU dated 25.01.2012.

7. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submitts that it was agreed in the aforesaid MOU that the petitioner No.1 (husband) shall pay Rs.90,000/- towards full and final settlement. The petitioner No.1 has paid the said amount to the respondent No.2. However, the petitioner No.1 has come forward to pay Rs.1,000/- p.m. for bringing up of his son Mohd. Mouz, aged 4 years. It is further submitted that the respondent no.2 is no more interested to pursue the aforesaid FIR. Therefore, the FIR mentioned above and the proceedings before the trial court be quashed.

8. Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court with her counsel Mr. D.K. Singh.

9. On instructions, ld. Counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that since the matter has been settled amicably vide the aforesaid MOU dated 25.01.2012 and the petitioner No.1 has further agreed to pay Rs.1,000/- p.m. in favour of his son, therefore, she is no more interested in pursing the instant case and has no objection if the above mentioned FIR and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

10. Ld. APP on the other hand submits that the State has already filed the charge sheet and the charges are yet to be framed. She has prayed that if this court is inclined to quash the FIR, heavy costs should be imposed upon the petitioners, as the government machinery has been used and precious time of the Court has been consumed.

11. I find force in the submissions of ld. APP for the State. Therefore, I direct the petitioners No.1, 4 and 5 to pay Rs.5,000/- each to be paid within six weeks from today in favor of Mohd. Mouz, son of the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2.

12. I, therefore, direct respondent No.2 to keep the aforesaid amount of Rs.15,000/- in the form of FDR initially for five years, to be renewed periodically, and the maturity amount shall be utilized for the welfare of the child Md. Mouz.

13. Keeping in view the above discussion and the statement of respondent No.2, in the interest of justice, I quash FIR No. 103/2009 registered at PS Welcome, Delhi and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.

14. Criminal M.C. 457/2012 is allowed.

15. I further make it clear that if the petitioner No.1 fails to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,000/- p.m. even for once, he shall be liable for contempt proceedings.

16. Dasti. SURESH KAIT,

J FEBRUARY 07, 2012

RS

Advertisements
Categories: 498A, Under Mutual Agreement Tags:
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Fight for Justice

A crusaders blog for inspiring thought.

Stand up for your rights

Gender biased laws

MyNation Foundation - News

News Articles from MyNation, india - News you can use

498afighthard's Blog

Raising Awareness About Gender Biased Laws and its misuse In India

The WordPress.com Blog

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

%d bloggers like this: