Mukul Bhardwaj v. The State & ANR

$~56.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MUKUL BHARDWAJ ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Kr. Sharma and Mr. O.P.

Singh, Advocates versus THE STATE & ANR ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State with W/SI Koyal, P.S. Mango Puri and respondent No.2 in person

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

O R D E R

% 04.03.2020 CRL.M.A. 4834/2020 (exemption) 1.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2.

The application stands disposed of.

1.

The present proceedings are instituted seeking quashing of FIR No.195/2019 registered under Sections 354/354(A)/341/506/195A/323 IPC at P.S. Mangol Puri, Delhi on the ground of settlement having been arrived at between the parties.

2.

The present FIR was registered at the instance of respondent No.2, who alleged that the petitioner had physically and sexually assaulted her. Respondent No.2 also alleged that the petitioner had misbehaved with her in the past as well and the petitioner threatened her to withdraw the previous complaint. The petitioner is the brother-in-law of respondent No.2.

3.

Learned APP for the State submits that the charge sheet in the present case has been filed against the present petitioner under the aforesaid sections and respondent No.2 is the only complainant/victim. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have entered into a settlement before Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini District Courts, Delhi on 24.09.2018. In terms of the settlement, respondent no.2 is now left with no claim whatsoever against the petitioner. 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have entered into a settlement before Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini District Courts, Delhi on 24.09.2018 and a joint statement was recorded on 11.04.2019 for partial modification of the settlement agreement. In terms of the settlement, respondent no.2 is now left with no claim whatsoever against the petitioner.

6.

The petitioner, who is present in person, is identified by his counsel and the Investigating Officer. Respondent No.2, who is present in person, is also identified by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner has shown remorse for his conduct and has undertaken not to repeat the same in future. 7.

Respondent no. 2 states that she has entered into the settlement with the petitioner out of her own free will, volition and without any undue force, pressure or coercion. She further states that the petitioner has not repeated the same incident and she has no objection if the present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed.

8.

Learned counsels for the parties submit that besides the present FIR there are two connected FIRs, FIR No.1211/2015 under Sections 354/354(B)/509/341 IPC registered at Police Station Prashant Vihar and FIR

No.319/2016 under Sections 354/354A/506/509/323/34 IPC registered at Police Station South Rohini, which have also been settled vide Settlement/Agreement dated 24.09.2018.

9.

The parties shall remain bound by their statements made in Court today.

10.

In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, no useful purpose will be served in continuance of the present criminal proceedings. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. 11.

With the above directions, the petition is disposed of. 12.

Order dasti to the learned counsels for the parties. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J MARCH 04, 2020 na