Vakeel Ansari @ Ajay & ANR v. The State & ANR

$~10 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 4024/2017 VAKEEL ANSARI @ AJAY & ANR ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Jaideep Malik, Adv versus THE STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for State ASI Sukhvinder, P.S. Safdarjung Enclave

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

% 27.10.2017 Respondent no.2 is present in the Court and has been identified by ASI Sukhvinder, P.S. Safdarjung Enclave. Respondent no.2 submits that she has settled all the disputes involved in FIR 181/2012 under Section 419/420/467/471/120B IPC of her own free will, voluntarily and without any undue force, pressure or coercion. It is noted that charge for the offence under section 468 IPC was framed by the trial court, even though charge sheet was not filed under this provision. Settlement has been arrived at between the petitioners and respondent no.2 before the Mediation Centre, Saket Court on 21st August, 2017. Respondent no.2 says that she has no objection if the aforementioned FIR as well as charge under Section 468 IPC are quashed in view of the settlement. It is submitted that offences under Sections 419/120-B IPC have already been permitted to be compounded by the trial court. Learned APP submits that trial court has no power to permit compounding of offence under Section

120-B IPC.

Keeping in mind the settlement arrived at between petitioners and respondent no.2, in the interest of justice, FIR No. 181/2012 and concerned proceedings under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC are quashed.

Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Dasti.

A.K. PATHAK, J OCTOBER 27, 2017 sm