← Library
High Court of DelhiW.P.(CRL)/2739/2016

Brij Bhushan Singh & ORS. v. State & ANR.

2016-09-19Hon'Ble Mr. Justice A.K. Pathak2 pages

$~55 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 2739/2016 BRIJ BHUSHAN SINGH & ORS.

..... Petitioners Through:

Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Adv.

versus STATE & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Sanjay Lao, Additional Standing Counsel for State alongwith Mr.

Siddharth Sindh, Adv. and SI Sunil Daggar, DIU-South District.

Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Adv. for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

% 19.09.2016 The petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.392/2016 under Sections 279/323/509/354-A/354-D IPC in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent No.2/complainant. It is alleged in the FIR by the respondent No.2 that she was going on 18.03.2016 on the motorcycle of her brother-in-law, when three persons (petitioners) in a Wagon-R bearing registration No.RJ-02CA-1273 gave a flying kiss to her near the Flyover at Rao Tula Rao Marg, New Delhi, therefore, she told her brother-in-law to increase the speed. Wagon-R also increased the speed and hit the motorcycle, as a result whereof she and her brother-in-law fell down.

The petitioners got down from the car and tried

to pull her scarf/stole.

It is submitted that petitioners and respondent No.2 have settled their disputes on the terms and conditions as stipulated in the Memorandum of Understanding/settlement agreement dated 08.09.016. The respondent No.2 is present in court and has been identified by SI Sunil Dagar. She submits that after the accident altercation took place between the parties, resulting in lodging of the present FIR. Respondent No.2 further submits that the settlement has been arrived at with the petitioners without any threat, coercion, or pressure of the petitioners. She states that FIR may be quashed.

Keeping in view the above facts the FIR No. 392/2016 under Sections 279/323/509/354-A/354-D IPC registered at Police Station Vasant Vihar and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed, in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent no.2. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

A.K. PATHAK, J SEPTEMBER 19, 2016/ssc