Sandeep Maurya & ORS. v. State Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & ANR.

$~61 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 3430/2018 SANDEEP MAURYA & ORS.

..... Petitioners Through Mr.

Nalin Tripathi, Mr.

Sampa Sengupta Ray and Mr.

Amogh Vaishisht, Advs.

Versus

STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Dr. M.P. Singh, APP for State with SI Rich Pal Singh, P.S. Sunlight Colony and SI Janak Singh, PS. NFC.

Respondent no.2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

% 12.07.2018 Notice. Learned APP accepts notice for respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 is also present in Court and accepts notice. He has been identified by SI Rich Pal Singh of police station Sunligh Colony. It is submitted that initially present FIR No. 312/2009 under Sections 420/468/471 IPC was registered at police station New Friends Colony, on the complaint of respondent no.2. Later on, police station Sunlight Colony was established and since disputes involved in the FIR related to the jurisdiction of police station Sunlight Colony the matter was transferred to

said police station and charge-sheet was filed by the police station Sunlight Colony.

It is further submitted that a civil suit no. 598678/16 titled Jan Bhawna Samaj Sudhar Samiti & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Chand Vyas was pending between respondent no.2 (Rajnish Sharma) and petitioner no. 5 (Dinesh Chand Vyas), wherein respondent no.2 was plaintiff no. 2 being President of Jan Bhawna Samaj Sudhar Samiti. The said matter was referred to Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari wherein a settlement has been arrived at between the parties on 13th February, 2018 (Annexure P-3). In the said settlement, the disputes involved in the present FIR were also settled. Hence, it is prayed that aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom may be quashed in view of the settlement. Respondent no.2 submits that he has settled the matter with the petitioner no.

5 of his own free will and without any undue force, pressure or coercion, therefore, he is not willing to pursue the FIR any further and the same may be quashed against all the petitioners. Keeping in mind the settlement arrived at between the petitioner no. 5 and respondent no. 2 voluntarily, in my view, no fruitful purpose would be served to keep the criminal proceedings pending.

therefrom are quashed.

Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Dasti.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

JULY 12, 2018 ga