Kuljeet Singh Uppal v. The State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi) & ANR.

$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 25.01.2019 + WP(CRL) 243/2019 & CRL.M.A. 1681/2019 KULJEET SINGH UPPAL ..... Petitioner versus THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI ) & ANR ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners :

Mr.Sanjeev Singh, Advocate.

For the Respondent:

Ms.Amita Sachdeva, Adv. for Ms.Richa Kapoor, ASC for the State with SI Pawan Kumar, P.S.Kalkaji.

Mr.Tanuj Agrawal, Adv for respondent No.2 along with Respondent No.2 in person.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.447/2013 under Sections 354A/509 IPC, Police Station Kalkaji. 2.

During investigation charge sheet was filed under Sections 354A/354D/509 IPC and Section 66A of the Information Technology Act.

3.

Allegations in the FIR are that both the complainant as well as the petitioner worked in the same office. It is alleged that the petitioner who was a senior officer used to make objectionable remarks with regard to the complainant and would also send objectionable and harassing SMSs. It is alleged that the complainant was forced to leave the services.

4.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner was also asked to leave the services by the company. 5.

Parties have settled their disputes and Deed of Compromise dated 21.01.2019 has been executed. As per the terms of settlement, petitioner has undertaken to pay a sum of Rs.23 lakhs to the respondent. A sum of Rs.10 lakhs has already been paid. Balance amount of Rs.13 lakhs has been paid today in Court vide DD No.505843 dated 23.01.2019 for Rs.2,00,000/- and DD No.020696 dated 24.01.2019.

6.

Respondent No.2 is present in Court in person, represented by counsel and identified by the Investigating Officer. She submits that she has settled her disputes with the petitioner and does not wish to prosecute the complaint any further and has no objection to the quashing of the subject FIR. She has also filed her affidavit in support of the petition.

7.

In view of the fact that the parties have resolved their disputes and respondent No. 2 does not wish to press her complaint,

continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. It would be expedient to quash the subject FIR and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom. 8.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed. FIR No.447/2013 under Sections 354A/354D/509 IPC and Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, Police Station Kalkaji and the consequent proceedings emanating there from are quashed. 9.

Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master. SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J JANUARY 25, 2019 rk