Vijay Kumar v. The State & ANR

$~28 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 101/2020 VIJAY KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Rahul Mehta, Advocate with petitioner in person.

versus THE STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Amit Peswani, Advocate for Ms.

Nandita Rao, ASC for the State with ASI Raghuber Prasad, PS Naraina.

Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for R-2 with R-2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR

O R D E R

% 26.02.2020 Crl. M.A.No. 686/2020 (for exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 101/2020 1.

This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of FIR No.9/2013, under Sections 287/338 IPC, registered at Police Station-Naraina, District South-West, Delhi, and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

2.

Issue notice. Learned standing counsel on behalf of the State accepts notice.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 enters appearance and accepts notice.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 was working as press man in the printing press run by the petitioner. On 15.01.2013, respondent no. 2 met with an accident while working at the printing machine. Respondent no. 2 was taken to ESI Hospital and was referred to Safdarjung Hospital. During the treatment, right hand of the respondent no. 2 was amputated.

On the complaint of respondent No. 2 above said FIR was registered against the petitioner on 15.03.2013.

4.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the trial, the parties have settled the matter amicably in terms of MOU dated 09.12.2019. Copy of the MOU is placed on record. 5.

Respondent no.2 is present in Court and he has been identified by the IO. Respondent no. 2 submits that as per the settlement he has received an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. The respondent No.2 submits that he has settled his disputes with the petitioner. He further submits that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. 6.

Learned standing counsel appearing for the State submits that in view of the settlement between the parties, the State has no objection if the FIR in question be quashed.

7.

Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the case pending. It will be nothing but abuse of the process of law.

Consequentially, this petition is allowed, FIR No.9/2013, under Sections 287/338 IPC, registered at Police Station-Naraina, District South-West, Delhi, and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed.

8.

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. Dasti. RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J FEBRUARY 26, 2020 AK