Rohit Kumar And ORS v. The State Of NCT Of Delhi And ORS

$~85 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ROHIT KUMAR AND ORS.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Anith Johnson, (D/3766/2019), Advocate with Petitioners in person versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel for the State with Ms. Priyam Agarwal and Mr. Abhinav Kumar Arya, Advocates.

Mr.

Sanjeev Kumar Baliyani, Advocate for R-2 to 4.

SI Kumher Singh, D-5681, Police Station Pul Prahalad Pur Complainants-in-person

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

O R D E R

% 13.08.2024 CRL.M.A. 24045/2024 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

1.

The Petitioners have approached this Court for quashing FIR No.105/2024 dated 15.03.2024 registered at Police Station Pul Prahlad Pur for offences punishable under Sections 406, 308, 506 & 34 IPC read with Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2.

Material on record shows that the disputes arose between the parties during the marriage ceremony of Petitioner No.1. The allegation against the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Petitioners in the FIR is that a demand of dowry was raised by the Petitioners and when it was objected and refused by the Complainants, they beat the Complainants and the Complainants got injured. On the complaint given by the Complainants, the instant FIR was registered. 3.

It is stated that the Petitioners have entered into an amicable settlement with the Complainants/Respondent No.2 to 4 before the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi on 28.03.2024. The Complainants/Respondents No.2 to 4 have also filed their affidavits stating that they do not have any objection to the quashing of the present FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

4.

Material on record shows that the injuries suffered by the Complainants/Respondent No.3 and 4 are simple in nature. 5.

The Petitioners and the Complainants/Respondent No.2 to 4 are present in Court today. They have been identified by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No.2 to 4 state that they have settled all the disputes with the Petitioners out of their own free will, without pressure, coercion or undue influence and state that they do not want to pursue the present case any further and request that the present FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom may be quashed. The parties undertake that they will remain bound by the proceedings recorded before this Court. 6.

Considering the fact that the Petitioners and the Respondents No.2 to 4 have amicably settled their disputes and considering the fact that the injuries suffered by Respondent No.3 and 4 are simple in nature and since the son and daughter of the parties are married and living happily together and now they are relatives, this Court is of the opinion that chances of conviction in the present case are remote. Applying the law laid by the Apex The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Court in State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, to the facts of the present case, this Court is inclined to quash the FIR. 7.

In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the present proceedings. Resultantly, the FIR No.105/2024 dated 15.03.2024 registered at Police Station Pul Prahlad Pur for offences punishable under Sections 406, 308, 506 & 34 IPC read with Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

8.

With these observations, the petition is disposed of along with pending application(s), if any.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J AUGUST 13, 2024 hsk The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.