Sunil Yadav v. State (Govt.N.C.T Of Delhi & ANR

0-- $-32 & 33

IN THE HIGH COURT

OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 917/2018 SURESH GUPTA & ORS ....Petitioners Through: Mr. Inder^et Singh, Adv. with petitioners in person versus STATE & ANR ....Respondents Addl. PP for the Through: Mr. Akshai Malik,.

State with SI Seema Mr. Manish Bhadauria Priyanka Bhadauria, in person.

and Ms.

Advs. with R-2 + CRL.M.C. 937/2018 SUNIL YADAV Petitioner Through. Mr. Manish Bhadauria and Ms.

Pnyanka Bhadauria, Advs.

STATE (GOVT.N.C.T OF DELHI &ANR d versus Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, Addl. prfYthe State with SI Seema Mr. Inderjeet Singh, respondent no. 2 in person Adv.

with

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. '^Td F, SACHDEVA W.04.2018 % 1.

The petitioner in CRL.M.C. 937/2018 seeks i impleadment of Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.

CRL.M.C. 91^2018 & CRL. RC. 937^

respondent no. 3. The impleadment is allowed. The amended memo of parties is taken on record.

2. The petitioners, in CRL.M.C. 917/2018 seek quashing of FIR No. 126 of 2013 under Sections 323/354/34 of the IPC Police Station Shahdara, Delhi and Petitioner in CRL.M.C. 937/2018 seeks quashing of FIR No. 124 of 2013 under Sections 323/354A/354B/506 of the IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act registered at Police Station Shahdara, Delhi, based on a settlement. The parties are neighbours and live in the same multi-storied 3.

complex. Subject FIRs have been registered consequent to a quarrel that took place between the parties and cross FIRs were registered. They submit that they have settled their disputes with the intervention of the respectable members of the locality as well as senior family members.

4.

Both the parties are present in person in Court today, represented by their counsels and are identified by the Investigating Officer. They submit that they have settled their all disputes with the intervention of locals and respectable people of the locality. They further submit that they do not wish to press the criminal complaints against each other any further.

In view of the fact that the disputes between the parties has 5.

been settled, 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 CRL.M.C. 917/2018 & CRL. M.C. 937/2018

justice being the ultimate guiding factor. It would also be expedient to quash the subject FIRs and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom.

In view of the above, the petitions are allowed. FIR No. 126 of 6.

2013 under Sections 323/354/34 of the IPC Police Station Shahdara, Delhi and FIR No. 124 of 2013 under Sections 323/354A/354B/506 of the IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Shahdara, Delhi and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are, accordingly quashed.

7.

Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master. I } (XyyY^ SANJEEV 4:

SACHDEVA, J APRIL 03, 2018 Vs'

J CRL.M.C. 917/2018 & CRL. M.C. 937/2018