Shivam Sehrawat & ORS v. State ( NCT Of Delhi) & ANR
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4482/2018 SHIVAM SEHRAWAT & ORS ..... Petitioners Through Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. with petitioners in person.
versus STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr.Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State.
W/SI Sushil Yadav, PS Prashant Vihar.
Mr.Manish Bansal, Adv. with Respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
O R D E R
% 28.11.2018 1.
Vide the present petition filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.0547/2016 registered u/s 354-D/34 IPC at Police Station Prashant Vihar, Delhi on the basis of a Compromise Deed dated 17th July, 2018.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are young boys who are residents of small villages in Delhi/Tehsil Kharkhoda, District Sonepat, Haryana. They had gone to Rohini, Delhi to meet a friend and were laughing boisterously on the road when the respondent no.2, a minor student who was walking by, made a complaint against them under the mistaken impression that they
were trying to tease her. As a result thereof, the captioned FIR was registered against the petitioners. He submits that the petitioners are all students who never had any intention of misbehaving with anybody but it is because of their cultural differences that their actions were misunderstood by the respondent no.2. 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that after the registration of the FIR, the parties with the intervention of their parents, have now resolved their disputes amicably and have entered into a Compromise Deed dated 17th July, 2018. He submits that as per the settlement, the parties, in order to maintain peace and harmony, have decided not to continue the criminal proceedings as they want to concentrate on their academic careers. He further submits that the petitioners are willing to pay any costs as may be directed by this Court and, therefore, prays that the aforesaid FIR and proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed.
4.
The petitioners as also the father/legal guardian of the respondent no.2 are present in Court and have been identified by the Investigating Officer. The respondent no.2 is also represented by counsel. I have interacted with the father of the respondent no.2 who states that he and his daughter have resolved their disputes with the petitioners out of their own free will and have entered into the settlement without any coercion. He further submits that keeping in view the fact that his minor daughter is a student of class XI who wants to concentrate on her studies, the captioned FIR and consequential proceedings be quashed as continuation of the same will not only cause hardship to them but hamper his minor daughter's
academic schedule.
5.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners as also the respondent no.2 are young students who are still pursuing their academic career, as also the fact that the petitioners and respondent no.2 appear to be from different strata of society, the explanation given by the parties that the complaint was made under a misunderstanding regarding the actions of the petitioners, cannot be said to be wholly unbelievable. In these circumstances, once the parties have themselves resolved their disputes and do not want any further acrimony with each other, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings.
6.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the captioned FIR and consequential proceedings are quashed, subject to the petitioners paying a sum of Rs.20,000/- each as costs to the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund within one week from today. A copy of the receipt of deposit of costs will be handed over to the Investigating Officer.
7.
The petition is disposed of in the above terms. REKHA PALLI, J NOVEMBER 28, 2018/aa