Pankaj Meena v. State NCT Of Delhi And ANR.

$~64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 724/2024 PANKAJ MEENA ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr Surya Singh, Mr Rohit Yadav and Mr Nitish Kumar, Advocates along with petitioner in person.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel for the State with Ms Priyam Aggarwal, Advocate for the State with SI Mamta, Police Station Dwarka South.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 04.03.2024 CRL.M.A. 6824/2024 1.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(CRL) 724/2024 2.

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No.0314/2023 under Sections 354(D)/506/509 IPC registered at Police Station Dwarka South and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement. 3.

Issue notice. The learned APP for the State accepts notice. He submits that since the parties have arrived at a settlement, the State has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

4.

The petitioner, as well as, respondent no. 2 are present in the Court and they have been identified by their respective counsel and by the Investigating Officer SI Mamta, Police Station Dwarka South. 5.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, as well as, the respondent no.2 are practising lawyers and due to certain misunderstanding the present FIR came to be registered at the instance of the respondent no.2. 6.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have arrived at a settlement, terms whereof were reduced in writing in the form of Memorandum of Understanding/Settlement Deed dated 13.02.2024, which is annexed as Annexure P-3 to the present petition. 7.

It is a term of the settlement between the parties that the respondent no.2 shall cooperate with the petitioner for the quashing of the aforesaid FIR.

8.

The respondent no.2, on a query put by the Court, states that she has no objection in case the FIR is quashed.

9.

At this stage, apt would it be to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303: (SCC p. 340, para 58) "58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor."

10.

In view of the settlement between the parties, the ultimate chances of conviction in the case are bleak, therefore, continuation of criminal The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

proceedings will not serve any useful purpose and it will be an exercise in futility.

11.

It is, thus, in the interest of justice that the present FIR and all the other proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed. 12.

Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR No.0314/2023 under Sections 354(D)/506/509 IPC registered at Police Station Dwarka South alongwith all other proceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed. 13.

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. 14.

Order be uploaded on the website of this court. VIKAS MAHAJAN, J MARCH 4, 2024 MK The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.