Pappu vs State & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 1137 Del

$~23
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+         CRL.M.C. 586/2012

%              Judgment delivered on: 17th February, 2012

         PAPPU                                       ..... Petitioner

                              Through:    Mr. B. D. Sharma, Advocate
                         Versus

         STATE & ORS.                                 ..... Respondents
                              Through :   Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for
                                          State along with Inspr. Man
                                          Mohan Kumar, P.S. Welcome
                                          Mr. M.K. Upadhyay, Advocate
                                          for R-2 and R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

Crl. M. A. No. 2059-2060/2012 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. CMs stand disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 586/2012

1. Issue notice.

2. Ms. Navin Sharma, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.

3. Mr. M.K. Upadhyay, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3.

4. With the consent of ld. Counsels of the parties, the instant petition is taken up for disposal.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR No. 179 dated 19.08.2009, case under Sections 363 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at P.S. Welcome Colony, Delhi against the petitioner, on the complaint of respondent No.3.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the matter has amicably been settled between the parties vide compromise deed dated 01.02.2012. He also submits that the complainant/ respondent No.3 is no more interested to pursue the case further and she has no objection if the above mentioned FIR with all emanating proceedings thereto be quashed.

7. Respondent No.3/complainant is present in person in the Court today with her counsel named above.

8. On instruction, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 has submitted that since the petitioner and respondent No.2 are major and now married with each other, therefore, respondent No.3/complainant has no objection, if the FIR is quashed.

9. Keeping in view of the statement of respondent No.3, the fact that petitioner and respondent No.2 are married with each other and further they have blessed with male child, therefore, in the interest of justice, I quash the FIR No. 179 dated 19.08.2009 registered at P.S. Welcome Colony with all the proceedings emanating therefrom.

10. Criminal M.C. 586/2012 is disposed of.

11. Dasti.

SURESH KAIT, J FEBRUARY 17, 2012/b