High Court of DelhiCRL.M.C./1711/2017

Vaibhav Kumar v. State Of Delhi & ORS

2017-08-25Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal2 pages

$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1711/2017 VAIBHAV KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.Suraj Prakash, Advocate with Mr.Manoj Lohat, Advocate versus STATE OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through:

Mr.Akshai Malik, APP for State with ASI Magendra Singh PS Model Town Mr.S.K.Das, Advocate for R-2 with R-2 in person

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

O R D E R

% 25.08.2017 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a telephonic conversation between the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 who informed that he would not appear in Court and has already settled the matter and taken the settlement amount in Trial Court. It is submitted that the settlement has also been arrived at between respondent No.2 and the petitioner.

Respondent No.3 has not appeared though served. Under Section 366 their settlements have already been recorded in the Court of MM, Rohini Court on 06.09.2006.

Respondent No. 2 is present in Court today and is identified by the learned counsel. He states that he has settled the matter with the petitioner in terms of Settlement Agreement dated 09.08.2016. He further states that he CRL.M.C. 1711/2017

does not wish to pursue the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.

Statements of the petitioner and respondent No.2 have been recorded separately.

In view of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved their differences voluntarily and of their own free will and without any coercion, pressure, and no useful purpose will be served in continuance of the proceedings, 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.510/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338 IPC registered at police station-Model Town, Delhi and proceedings pursuant thereto between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 are hereby quashed. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.

AUGUST 25, 2017 afa CRL.M.C. 1711/2017