Arun Kishore vs State & Anr
2008 Latest Caselaw 1194 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           CRL.M.C.No.2420/2008

%                      Date of decision : 30.07.2008


Arun Kishore                                           ....... Petitioner
                            Through:       Mr.Manish Chauhan, Advocate
                                           along with the petitioner in
                                           person.

                                        Versus

State & Anr                                            ......... Respondents
                            Through :      Mr. R.N. Vats, APP for the State.
                                           Mr.Gopal Trivedi, Advocate for the
                                           respondent No.2 along with the
                                           respondent No.2 in person.

CORAM :-
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

       1.      Whether reporters of Local papers may                      YES
               be allowed to see the judgment?
       2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                     NO
       3.      Whether the judgment should be reported                    NO
               in the Digest?

ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioner and respondent No.2 are present with their

counsel. The counsel for the parties contend that the matter has been

resolved between the parties and no useful purpose would be served in

continuing with the proceedings pursuant to FIR No.235/2007 dated

13th June, 2007, P.S.Sarai Rohilla, under Section

353/183/332/323/34 of IPC. Let the statement of respondent

No.2/complainant be recorded.

The statement of respondent no.2 has been recorded. It is

contended that she has settled with the petitioner. Since all the

disputes have been settled no useful purpose shall be served in

continuing with the proceedings pursuant to FIR No.235/2007 dated

13th June, 2007, under Section 353/183/332/323/34 registered at

P.S.Sarai Rohilla. It shall also be in the interest of justice in case the

FIR No.235/2007, P.S.Sarai Rohilla, under Section

353/183/332/323/34 IPC and all the proceedings emanating there

from are quashed against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the

State also does not have any objection in case the FIR is quashed.

Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, FIR

No.235/2007 dated 13th June, 2007, P.S.Sarai Rohilla, under Section

353/183/332/323/34 and all the proceedings emanating there from

are quashed against the petitioner. The petition is disposed of.

Dasti.

July 30, 2008                                     ANIL KUMAR, J.
'K'