Raman Kumar v. State & ORS.

41# $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RAMAN KUMAR ..... Petitioner Represented by:

Mr. B.K. Jha, Advocate with petitioner in person with petitioners in person.

versus STATE & ORS.

..... Respondents Represented by:

Mr. Ashok K. Garg, APP for the State with SI Mahender Singh, PS B.H. Rao.

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 01.09.2016 Crl. M.A. No. 13541/2016 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CRL.M.C. 3161/2016 and Crl. M.A. No. 13540/2016 (Stay) By the present petition the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 85/2013 under Sections 363 IPC registered at PS Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi on the complaint of Respondent No.2 on the ground that the parties have settled the matter.

Learned APP for the State on instructions from the Investigating Officer states that during the course of investigation the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC was also added and charge sheet has already been

filed against the petitioner only. He further states that the respondent No.2, who is the father of respondent No.3 was the complainant in the above-noted FIR. Learned APP for the State further submits that during the course of investigation statement of respondent No.3 was recorded who stated that she had gone with the petitioner of her own will and she was not enticed by him and the relations were developed between the petitioner and respondent No.3 only after the marriage was performed.

The complainant/Respondent No. 2 Mr. Prem Singh who is present in Court and is identified by the Investigating Officer states that she has settled the matter with the petitioner and in terms of the settlement between the parties, he does not want to pursue the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto as the petitioner and respondent No.3 are happily married and living peacefully and he has no cause of grievance against the petitioner.

Respondent No.3 is also present in Court and is identified by the Investigating Officer. She states that she was never enticed by the petitioner and it was on her asking that the petitioner had taken her away from the parental home.

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 the same would create further acrimony between them, 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. 85/2013 under Sections 363 IPC registered at PS Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi and proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed.

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

The petition and the application are disposed of. Order dasti. MUKTA GUPTA, J.

SEPTEMBER 01, 2016 'vn'