Nitin Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi

ORDER o/o

08.10.2012 rrl.M.A.Nos.l7fil6-27/2012(Exemption)in " rrl.M.A.No« 17628-29/2012(Exemptinn^mW.P.frrl.)No.1448/2012

¶1Exemptionallowed,subjectto alljustexceptions.

¶2Applicationsstanddisposedof. W.P.fCrl.)Nn.1448/2012&W.P.fCrl.)No.1449/2012

¶1This order shall dispose of two Writ Petitions i.e. W.P.(Crl.) No.1448/2012and W.P.(Crl.)No.1449/2012filedby the petitionersseeking quashingof two FIRs i.e. FIR No.62/2011 under Sections498-A/406/34 IPC, PS LajpatNagar, Delhi and FIR No.87/2011under Sections324/506 IPC.PS AmarColony,Delhiandall the proceedingsarisingtherefrom. Case FIR No.62/2011 under Sections 498-A/406/34IPC was got registeredby the complainant/respondentNo.2 againsther husbandNitin Bajaj i.e. petitionerNo.1and her in-laws. Case FIR No.87/2011under Section324/506IPC was got registered by the complainant/respondentNo.2againstherhusbandNitinBajaj. 4, Brieffactsleadingto filingofthesepetitionsare thatrespondentNo.2 was marriedto petitionerNitin Bajaj on 19.11.2003,accordingto Hindu rites and customs.One male childnamelyTanayBajaj was bom out ofthe said wedlock.

¶5It is stated in the petition that due to several temperamental differences, petitioner Nitin Bajaj and respondent No.2 could not live together. Apart from various litigationsfiled by the parties against each other,respondentNo.2 gotthe aboveFIRsregisteredagainstthe petitioners. It is furtherstatedin thepetitionthatduringthe proceedings,partiesarrived at an amicable settlement vide memorandum of understandmg dated

21.02.2012(copy placed on record)with the interventionof relativesand common friends as well as theirrespectivecounseland agreedto dissolve the marriageby decreeofdivorceby mutualconsent.Intermsofsettlement, petitioneragreedto payRs.35 lacsto respondentNo.2towardsfull and fmal settlementin respectofboththeFIRs.Intermsofsettlement,asumofRs.20 lachas alreadybeenreceivedbyrespondentNo.2.Thebalancesum ofRs.l5 lac has beenreceivedby respondentNo.2 in Courttodayvide two Demand Draft No.269276 and 269277 both dated 13.09.2012 for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-each.

¶6Learned counsel for the petitionerssubmitsthat the petitionersand respondentNo.2 have amicablyresolvedtheir disputeand petitionershave paid the total settled amount of Rs.35 lacs to respondent No.2 and respondentNo.2 is notleftwithany claimor grievanceofanynatureagainst the petitioners.Learnedcounselstatesthatsincethepartieshavesettledtheir disputes amicably,no use&l purposewould be served by continuanceof criminalproceedingsagainstthe petitioners.Learnedcounselthus praysfor quashing of the FIRs and all subsequentproceedingsarising out of said FIRs.

¶7RespondentNo.2 is presentin Court today and is identifiedby her counsel. She also confirms the factum of amicable settlementwith the petitioners.RespondentNo.2 statedthat she has no grievancewhatsoever left against the petitionersand that she has no objectionif the FIRs in questionare quashed.

¶8In view of the aforesaidamicablesettlementarrivedat betweenthe parties,Iam ofthe consideredviewthatno usefulpurposewouldbe served © by continuingthe criminalproceedingsagainstthe petitionerswhich will onlybeafutileexerciseandwastageofprecioustimeoftheCourt.

¶9Accordingly,both the petitions are allowed and FIR No.62/2011 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPG, PS Lajpat Nagar, Delhi and FIR No.87/2011underSections324/506IPG,PS AmarColony,Delhiand allthe proceedingsarisingtherefromareherebyquashed,leavingthepartiesto bear their own costs.

¶10Order dasti. PRATIBHA RANI, OCTOBER 08, 2012 'st'

$-52 & 53 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1448/2012 NITINBAJAJ&ORS. Petitioners Through: Mr.RajdevSingh,Mr.Lalit ChaudharyandMsJasneet Kaur, Advs. with petitionersin person. versus STATEOF NOT OF DELHI&ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SaleemAhmed,ASC for State- R-1 withMs.CharuDalai,Adv. and W/SI Narinder Kaur, PS Lajpat Nagar. ' Ms.AnishaJainandMr.V.R.Bokadia, Advs. for coinplainant/R-2in person. AND + W.P.(CRL) 1449/2012 NITIN BAJAJ Through: Mr.RajdevSingh,Mr.Lalit ChaudharyandMs.JasneetKaur, Advs. with petitionersin person. versus STATEOF NOT OF DELHI&ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.SaleemAhmed,ASC for State- R-1 withMs.CharuDalai,Adv. and SIUmesh Kumar,PS, DIS South- East. Ms.AnishaJain andMr.V.R.Bokadia, Advs. for complainant/R-2in person. CORAM: HON'BLEMS. JUSTICEPRATIBHARANI