High Court of DelhiW.P.(CRL)/3384/2016

Raj Pal v. State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi) & ANR.

2016-11-25Hon'Ble Mr. Justice P.S.Teji2 pages

$~10 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 3384/2016 RAJ PAL ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Karan Pal Singh, Adv. with petitioner in person.

versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

..... Respondent Through Mr.Sanjay Lao, Additional Standing Counsel for State with Mr.Siddharth Sindhu, Adv. and SI Vandana, PS Kirti Nagar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

O R D E R

% 25.11.2016 Crl.M.A. 18389/2016 (Exemption) Application is allowed subject to just exceptions. W.P. (CRL) 3384/2016 Notice.

Notice of the petition accepted by the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

Arguments heard.

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.273/2016, under Section 354 IPC, Police Station Kirti Nagar. As per FIR, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are

that he under the garb of showing the accommodation on rent to the complainant, took her in a car and on the way, the petitioner inappropriately touched the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant ran away from the car.

The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR on the ground that the petitioner is working as a property dealer with the name and style of 'Shri Balaji Property' at Sharda Puri, Ramesh Nagar, Delhi and he was present in his office from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. on 24.06.2016 i.e. on the date of alleged incident. In para 13 of the petition, the petitioner has mentioned a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai and others, 2014 LawSuit (SC) 15.

I have gone through the above judgment relied upon by the petitioner which says that the proceedings could be quashed by the Court and there is no bar for moving for quashing of the proceedings to avoid unnecessary trial. Apart from the same, no other ground is taken by the petitioner in the entire petition. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out any ground for quashing of the FIR in question.

The present petition is accordingly dismissed. P.S.TEJI, J NOVEMBER 25, 2016 dd