CRL. M.C. 77/2010 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL. M.C. 77/2010 Decided on 04.08.2010 IN THE MATTER OF : HARMEET SINGH AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Baldev Raj, Advocate with petitioner No.1 in person. versus STATE AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State. Mr. Samson Honey, Advocate for respondent No.2 with respondent No.2 in person. CORAM * HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest? HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.931/2003 lodged by the respondent No.2, father of Ms. Devender Kaur, wife of petitioner No.1 under Section 498A/307/34 IPC, registered with Police Station: Tilak Nagar. 2. It is stated in the petition that the marriage of petitioner No.1 was solemnised with Ms. Devender Kaur, daughter of respondent No.2 on 24.04.2003. There is no issue from out of the wedlock. It is the case of the petitioners that on 01.08.2003, the daughter of respondent No.2 consumed CRL. M.C. 77/2010 Page 2 of 5 few capsules of the medicine, Spasmo Proxyvon and lost consciousness, whereafter petitioner No.1 rushed her to the hospital for treatment. Thereafter, respondent No.2 was informed about the incident. After a gap of three and half months, respondent No.2 lodged the aforesaid complaint against the petitioners claiming that they had a hand in his daughter’s ingestion of the aforesaid medicine. Incidently, the daughter of respondent No.2 went into coma in the month of August, 2003 itself and her health condition remains the same till date. 3. After the investigation was completed in the aforesaid FIR, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners and in the pending proceedings, the learned ASJ has framed charges. Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners applied for bail before the concerned court and are on regular bail. 4. Apart from the aforesaid complaint, respondent No.2 also filed two complaint cases against the petitioners under Section 125 of the Cr.PC and under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2003, on behalf of his daughter. During the pendency of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.PC, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed the parties to explore the possibility of arriving at a negotiated settlement by approaching the Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts. As a result thereof, a settlement took place between the parties on 24.10.2009 (Annexure P-2). In terms of the settlement, it was agreed between the petitioners and the respondent No.2 that the petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- to the respondent No.2 for the welfare of his daughter in the manner as set out in para 2 of the Settlement Agreement. In turn, CRL. M.C. 77/2010 Page 3 of 5 respondent No.2 agreed to withdraw the two complaint cases filed by him against the petitioners. The parties also agreed that they would file a divorce petition for dissolution of the marriage of petitioner No.1 with Ms. Devender Kaur by mutual consent. 5. Counsels for the parties state today that the petitions filed by the respondent No.2 under Section 125 Cr.PC and under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2003, have since been withdrawn by him and further, the petition for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the daughter of respondent No.2 by mutual consent has also been filed before the concerned Court. Certified copy of the order dated 26.07.2010 passed by the learned ADJ on the aforesaid divorce petition is handed over by the counsel for the petitioners and taken on record. The first motion having been filed by the parties, the matter is pending for filing of second motion, which is likely to be taken up in January, 2011. 6. Respondent No.2 is present in Court and states that out of the agreed sum of Rs.11,50,000/-, he received a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- before the learned ASJ in the petition filed for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. Another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is stated to have been received by him yesterday, thus leaving a balance sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, which the parties state shall be paid by the petitioner No.1 to the respondent No.2 when the second motion for dissolution of marriage is taken up before the concerned court. The respondent No.2 states that he has no objection to the FIR lodged against the petitioners being quashed. He further states that initially when the police had recorded his statement after the incident on CRL. M.C. 77/2010 Page 4 of 5 01.08.2003, he had not attributed any blame to the petitioners. However, subsequently when his daughter went into coma, he got apprehensive and changed his earlier statement of absolving the petitioners by giving a second statement after a period of three and a half months and had lodged the aforesaid FIR. 7. I have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record. I have also considered the submissions made by the parties. The respondent No.2 categorically states that initially when the police had recorded his statement after the incident on 01.08.2003, he had not blamed the petitioners for the incident. However, subsequently when his daughter went into coma, he got apprehensive and changed his earlier statement of absolving the petitioners by giving a second statement after three and a half months and lodged the aforesaid FIR. A perusal of the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 on 23.11.2003 bears out the aforesaid submission made by respondent No.2 that initially, there was no mention made in the complaint as to any complicity on the part of the petitioners with regard to ingestion of Spasmo Proxyvon by Ms. Devender Kaur, which resulted in her going into coma. The second statement appears to have been an afterthought. Till date, there is nothing point out from the record which indicates any common intention or knowledge attributable to the petitioners for the condition of the daughter of respondent No.2. It appears that the parties have arrived at the aforesaid settlement out of their own free will and volition and without any undue influence or coercion from any quarters. The respondent No.2 has confirmed having received a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- from the petitioners and does not oppose the prayer made in the petition. It CRL. M.C. 77/2010 Page 5 of 5 therefore does not appear that any useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the present case. 8. Accordingly, FIR No. 931/2003 is quashed alongwith the pending proceedings arising therefrom. 9. The petition is disposed of. (HIMA KOHLI) AUGUST 04, 2010 JUDGE rkb