Judgment · High Court

Mr. Vibhu Tiwari, Adv. VCTSUS STATE & ANR ..... ResPondents Through Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for State Mr. Puneet Maheshwari, Adv. for R-2 with R-2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT o/o Hrs-r' Crl.M.A.984O/2OLt (Delav) For the rea-sons explained, delay stands condoned. Criminal M.A. stands disPosed of. Crl. M.C.2Z5Ol2011 I It

lssue notice. Ms. Rajdipa Behura, ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of State and Mr. Puneet Maheshwari, Adv. accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.

Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR No.222 dated 19.11.2009 was registered against petitioner No.1 Arun Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Sharma and his mother petitioner No.2 under Section 498A1406134 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at PS Timarpur.

The respondent No.2 Pinki Shbrma @ Saroj is personally present with her counsel, who is identified by her counsel. In addition, respondent No.2 has produced the duplicate copy of the identity card issued by Election Commission of India bearing No.XGV1511104, which stahds in her name. Copy of I €, the same is on record.

Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the settlement is arrived between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. As per the settlement, petitioner No.1 was agreed to be paid T2,00,000/- to respondent No .2 in lieu of the maintenance, alimony and Stridhan. The decree of divorce has already been granted vide order dated 07.07.20L1 under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with mutual consent.

Further submits, T1,50,000/- has already been paid to respondent No.2 and the balance amount of T50,000/- has i! been handed over today by way of DD bearing No.784216 of t50,000/- dated 15.07.2011 in favour of Smt. Saroj, drawn in favour of PNB, NSIC Bhawan, Okhla Industrial Estate, New I I i I I 1 I I a Delhi. Respondent No.2 has accepted the same without any protest. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that charge-sheet has been already filed and'charges have not yet been framed.

Keeping in view the dissolution of marriage, and the matter has already been settled, in the interest of justice, I quash the FIR No.222 dated 19.11.2009, registered against petitioner No.1 Arun Sharma and his mother petitioner No.2 under Section 498A1406134 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at PS Timarpur.

Learned APP further submits itrat since the Government Machinery has been used and the precious time of the court is Consumed, Some cost should be imposed on the petitioners, to be given in favour of some welfare scheme.

I find force in the submission of ld. APP, therefore, I impose a cost of T5,000/- on the petitioner No.1, to be paid in favour of Delhi Child Welfare Fund. The same shall be paid within 7 days from today and the proof of the same shall be placed on record. Petitioner No.2 is a house wife and has no source of income, therefore, I defer imposing cost on the petitioner No.2.

Crl.M .C.2750120IL1 is allowed in the above terms. AUGUST 23,2OLL suREsH KAIT,J