Raj Karan v. State NCT Of Delhi & ANR

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4791/2018 RAJ KARAN ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, Adv.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondent Through Mr.Mukesh Kumar, APP with SI Vipin Teotia, PS Kalyanpur.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

O R D E R

% 01.11.2018 1.

Vide the present petition u/s 482 CrPC, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.488/2014 u/s 354/354(B)/506/509 IPC at P.S Kalyan Puri, Delhi and all proceedings emanating therefrom, based on a compromise deed dated 14.05.2018.

2.

Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the respondent no.2 are close relatives, the respondent no.2 being the wife of the petitioner's younger brother. He submits that since the petitioner and the respondent no.2 live in the same property, a quarrel took place between them and the respondent no.2, under a misunderstanding, lodged a complaint against the petitioner, leading to registration of the aforesaid FIR. 3.

Mr.Sharma submits that after the registration of the aforesaid FIR, the parties with the intervention of the elders of the family have

resolved their disputes and entered into a compromise dated 14.05.2018, pursuant whereto the agreed amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has already been paid to respondent no.2 by the petitioner. He, therefore, prays that the captioned FIR and proceedings emanating therefrom, be quashed, as the FIR was based on a petty quarrel that took place between close relatives.

4.

The petitioner as also the respondent no. 2 alongwith her brother are present in Court and have been identified by the Investigating Officer. I have interacted with the respondent no.2, who states that she has entered into the compromise with the petitioner of her own free will and without any coercion. She further states that she has received the entire agreed amount and, therefore, does not want to pursue the aforesaid criminal proceedings as she does not want any further acrimony with the petitioner. 5.

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Keeping in view the fact that the FIR basically emanates from a dispute between two close relatives, which already stands resolved as also the fact that the complaint lodged by the respondent no.2 was a result of a misunderstanding, I find that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. In my considered view, the ends of justice demand that the FIR and consequential proceedings be quashed.

6.

For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed and the captioned FIR and all consequential proceedings are quashed, subject to costs of Rs. 5,000/- payable by the petitioner to Delhi High Court

Staff Welfare Fund within two weeks from today. A copy of the receipt of deposit of costs will be handed over to the Investigating Officer to be produced before the learned Trial Court on the next date. 7.

The petition is disposed of in the above terms. REKHA PALLI, J NOVEMBER 01, 2018 sr