Sanjay Sehgal vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr
2015 Latest Caselaw 4927 Del

$~11

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                 Judgment delivered on: 13th July, 2015

+      CRL.M.C. 2680/2015

SANJAY SEHGAL                                        ..... Petitioner
                              Represented by: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr.
                              Adv. with Mr. Angiras Gahlaut, Adv.

                     versus

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) &
ANR                                         ..... Respondents
                   Represented by: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP
                   for State.
                   Mr. S.L. Gupta, Adv. for R2.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Vide the present petition; petitioner seeks directions thereby quashing FIR No.209/2015 registered at PS-Janak Puri, for the offences punishable under Sections 343/374 IPC and Section 23 of J.J. Act.

2. Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of CWC- VII, Delhi. The petitioner has settled all the disputes and has deposited an amount of Rs.90,852/- as wages / settlement with

CWC mentioned above. The said amount has been converted into FDR with the maturity amount of Rs.1,00,924/- which has been handed over to Sh. Budhimann, S/o, Surkra Khaia, father of the child, who has received the same and does not want to pursue the case against the petitioner.

3. In the present case, other co-accused are also there. However, only petitioner has settled the case with the said Budhimann, father of the child and has prayed to allow the instant petition.

4. Mr. Ramesh Gupta, ld. Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits the Coordinate Bench of this Court has allowed petitions of the similar nature vide dated 13.01.2015 in Crl. MC. 5080/2014, and vide order dated 04.02.2015 in Crl. M.C. 427/2015.

5. On the other hand, ld. APP appearing on behalf of the State submits that the matter has been settled only qua the petitioner and the amount mentioned above has been paid to the father of the child. Moreover, the said settlement is arrived before CWC-VII. Therefore, if the present petition, allowed, the State has no objection.

6. Keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the parties and the statement of ld. Additional Public Prosecutor and moreover, the allegations against the petitioner is only under Section 374 IPC and not for trafficking of child, FIR No. 209/2015 registered at PS-

Janak Puri, for the offences punishable under Sections 343/374 IPC and 23 of J.J. Act with emanating proceedings thereto, if any, is hereby quashed against the petitioner only.

7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

8. Dasti.

SURESH KAIT, J

JULY 13, 2015 jg