Vinod Dawar & ORS v. State & ORS

$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4345/2017 VINOD DAWAR & ORS ..... Petitioners Through:

Mr. S.K. Pabbi and Ms. Disha Singh, Advs.

versus STATE & ORS ..... Respondents Through:

Mr. M.S. Oberoi, APP for State with SI Maju Yadav, P.S. Janakpuri.

Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. for R-2 & R-3 along with R-2 & R-3 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

% 13.12.2017 Respondent no. 3 is husband of respondent no.2. It appears that respondent no. 3 filed a complaint being CSIC 4438/12 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners praying therein that they be punished for having committed the offence under Sections 323/341/344/406/506/509/34 IPC.

An application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent no. 3 which was allowed vide order dated 28th April, 2017 whereby SHO of police station Janakpuri was directed to lodge the FIR. Thereafter, Magistrate listed the matter for 29th May, 2017 for filing the status report by the concerned SHO regarding the investigation.

Investigating Officer registered the FIR after recording the statement of

respondent no.2 and submitted the report before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

Vide order dated 5th July, 2017 complaint filed by the respondent no. 3 was adjourned sine die under Section 200 Cr.P.C. It was ordered that complaint will be revived depending on the final report to be filed by the police. The FIR is still under investigation and no final report has been filed.

During the hearing, it is revealed that marriage between the petitioner no.3, who is daughter of petitioner no.1, was fixed with the son of respondent nos. 2 and 3.

Only Roka ceremony had taken place.

Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties and marriage proposal broke off.

Petitioner no.1 filed a FIR bearing No. 21/2017 at police station Model Town, Ludhiana, under Sections 420/120B/406 IPC against the respondent nos. 2 and 3 as well as their son. During the investigation of both the abovenoted FIRs, petitioners and respondent nos. 2 and 3 have settled their disputes amicably. FIR registered at Ludhiana has already been quashed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in view of the settlement.

It is, therefore, prayed that present FIR may also be quashed in view of the settlement.

Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are present in Court and have been identified

by W/SI Manju of police station Janakpuri.

Respondent nos. 2 and 3 submit that they have settled the matter of their own free will and without any undue force, pressure or coercion and have no objection in case present FIR as well as complaint case are quashed. Petitioner no.1 also admits having received the entire settled amount of `8 lacs from the private respondents.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, as detailed above, FIR No. 192/2017 under Sections 354/506/509 IPC registered at police station Janakpuri as well as complaint case are quashed. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Dasti.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

DECEMBER 13, 2017 ga