Deepak Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 16 Oct 2018 · 2018:DHC:6783
Sanjeev Sachdeva
CRL.M.C. 5316/2018
2018:DHC:6783
criminal petition_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 354 IPC and related provisions based on an amicable settlement and withdrawal of complaint by the prosecutrix.

Full Text
Translation output
CRL.M.C. 5316/2018
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
delivered on:16.10.2018
CRL.M.C. 5316/2018
DEEPAK SINGH ..... Petitioner
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Rathore with Mr. Yashasvi Tandon, Mr. Sunny A. and Mr. Himanshu Khokar, Advocates
For the Respondent : Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, APP for the
State.
SI Navdeep, PS Kamla Market.
Mr. Suman Sirohi, Advocate for respondent No.2 with respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
16.10.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
Crl.M.A.34446/2018 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

1. Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.181/2016 under Sections 354(A)(1)/354(B)/354(D)(1)/341/506 IPC, Police Station Kamla 2018:DHC:6783 Market, based on a settlement.

2. Allegations in the FIR are that the prosecutrix was known to the petitioner as they earlier studied together. Thereafter, the petitioner is alleged to have followed her and troubled her.

3. Learned counsels for the parties submit that parties have settled their disputes and a Compromise Deed dated 11.09.2018 has been executed between the parties. Petitioner has apologised to respondent No.2 for his conduct and has assured that he shall not repeat his conduct in future.

4. Petitioner, who is present in Court in person, undertakes that he shall not repeat his conduct in future. The undertaking is accepted.

5. Respondent No.2 is present in Court in person, represented by counsel and is identified by the Investigating Officer. She submits that she has settled the disputes with the petitioner and does not wish to prosecute the complaint any further and has no objection to the quashing of the subject FIR.

6. In view of the fact that the parties have resolved their disputes and respondent No. 2 does not wish to press her complaint, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. It would be expedient to quash the subject FIR and the consequent proceedings emanating there from.

7. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. FIR No.181/2016 under Sections 354(A)(1)/354(B)/354(D)(1)/341/506 IPC, Police Station Kamla Market and the consequent proceedings emanating there from are quashed.

8. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

OCTOBER 16, 2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J st