Vinod Thakur v. The State ( Govt Of NCT Of Delhi) & ANR

$~34.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1987/2016 & Crl. M.A. Nos.10407-08/2016 VINOD THAKUR ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Deepak Sahu, Advocate with Mr.

Vishnu Sharma, Advocate.

versus THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondent Through:

Ms. Kamna Vohra, Additional Standing Counsel for State along with SI Yogesh Raj, PS Prashant Vihar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

O R D E R

% 15.07.2016 This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for orders and directions quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under section 47 and 50 of the Delhi Police Act. The said proceedings have been initiated on account of several cases registered against the petitioner being FIR No.417/2012 registered at PS Prashant Vihar under section 420 IPC; FIR No.72 /2013 registered at PS Saraswati Vihar under section 420/409 IPC; FIR No.393/2013 registered at PS Subhash Place under section 420/34 IPC; FIR

No.397/2012 registered at PS Prashant Vihar under section 420 IPC; FIR No.498/2012 registered at PS Prashant Vihar under section 420/468 IPC, and; FIR No.520 /2012 registered at PS Prashant Vihar under section 420 IPC.

The submission of the petitioner is that all the FIRs stand quashed by this court except FIR 520/2012 and in respect of the same, the quashing petition is listed on 09.09.2016.

The petitioner has placed on record the several orders quashing the aforesaid FIRs except FIR 520/2012. A perusal of the orders shows that all the FIRs have been quashed on account of settlement being arrived at with the complainant. The said quashing is not on account of the court not finding a prima facie case against the petitioner. Therefore, such quashing, to my mind, cannot be a reason or justification to seek the termination of the proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 47 and 50 of the Delhi Police Act. The petitioner has been put to notice and it appears that the final order is yet to be passed.

In these circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition. Dismissed.

VIPIN SANGHI, J JULY 15, 2016 sr