Sanjeev Kumar & ORS. v. State (NCT Of Delhi) & ANR.

$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4371/2018 SANJEEV KUMAR & ORS.

..... Petitioners Through:

Mr.Vikramajeet Singh, Advocate with the petitioners in person.

versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Ms.Manjeet Arya, APP for State.

Mr.Arun Srivastava and Ms.Ms.Nimta, Advocates for R-2 with R-2/complainant in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

O R D E R

% 05.02.2020 1.

The present proceedings are instituted seeking quashing of FIR No. 452/2013, registered under Sections 354/354A/323/506/427/34 IPC at Police Station Mehrauli, New Delhi on the ground of settlement having been arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. 2.

As per the case of the prosecution, the present FIR was registered against the petitioners on complaint of respondent No. 2 wherein she alleged that on 08.06.2013, petitioners raised unauthorized construction in front of the house of respondent No.2 without any sanction/permission and when respondent No.2 objected to the same, she was physically assaulted by the petitioners.

3.

Learned APP for the State, on instructions, submits that the chargesheet has been filed against petitioners No.1 to 3, who are kept in Column No.11, whereas no charge-sheet has been filed against petitioners No.4 & 5, who are kept in Column No.12.

4.

Learned counsels for the parties submit that the parties have amicably settled their dispute vide settlement dated 25.02.2017 and statements of the parties were also recorded on the said date before the Court of SCJ-cum-RC (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi in CS SCJ No.82602/2016 titled Chandra Devi v. Dr. Shyam Passi & Ors.

5.

The parties are present in person and have been identified by their respective counsels as well as by the Investigating Officer. The petitioners have shown remorse for their conduct and have undertaken not to repeat the same in future.

6.

Respondent No. 2, who is present in Court, states that she has entered into the settlement with the petitioners out of her own free will, volition and without any undue force, pressure or coercion. She further states that the petitioners have not repeated the same incident and that she has no objection if the present FIR and the consequent proceedings are quashed. 7.

The parties shall remain bound by their statements made in Court today.

8.

In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, in my view, no useful purpose will be served in continuance of the present criminal proceedings. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. 9.

With the above directions, the petition is disposed of. 10.

Order dasti to the counsels for the parties.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J FEBRUARY 05, 2020/'dc'