Rajendra v. State Of Delhi (NCT) & ANR

3# $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RAJENDRA ..... Petitioner Represented by:

Mr. Tushar Thareja, Advocate with petitioner in person.

versus STATE OF DELHI (NCT) & ANR ..... Respondents Represented by:

Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for the State for Mr. R.S.

Kundu, Additional Standing Counsel with SI Ranjit Singh, PS Subjzi Mandi.

Respondent No.2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 23.11.2017 Crl. M.A. No. 8531/2017 (Delay in refiling) For the reasons stated in the application delay of 25 days in refiling the petition is condoned.

Application is disposed of.

By the present petition the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 81/2013 under Sections 354D IPC registered at PS Subzi Mandi, Delhi on the complaint of Respondent No.2 and the proceedings pursuant thereto on the ground that the parties have settled the matter. Issue notice.

Learned APP appearing on behalf of learned Additional Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the State. Learned APP for the State on instructions from the Investigating Officer submits that in the above noted FIR the petitioner is the only accused and the respondent No. 2 the only complainant/victim. The complainant/Respondent No. 2 who is present in Court and is identified by the Investigating Officer states that since the petitioner has apologised to her and assured that no such misbehaviour will take place in future, she has settled the matter with the petitioner. She states that she does not want to pursue the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.

Petitioner who is present in Court and is identified by learned counsel affirms the statement of respondent No.2 and tenders his unqualified apology and assures that there will be no such misbehaviour in future. In view of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved their differences of their own free will, volition and without any coercion and no useful purpose will be served in continuance of the proceedings, rather it would be an abuse of the process of the Court, thus it would be in the interest of justice to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto. There is no legal impediment in quashing the FIR in question.

Consequently, FIR No. 81/2013 under Sections 354D IPC registered at PS Subzi Mandi, Delhi and proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed, subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of ₹2,000/- with the Delhi High Legal Services Committee within four weeks.

Parties have signed this order sheet in acknowledgment of their statements made before this Court.

Petition is disposed of. Order dasti.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

NOVEMBER 23, 2017 'vn'