Raj Kumar vs State & Anr.
2017 Latest Caselaw 3829 Del

$~43
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    W.P.(CRL) 2186/2017
     RAJ KUMAR                               ..... Petitioner
                     Through: Mr.Kamran Malik, Advocate with
                     Mr.Umesh Chandra, Advocate along with
                     petitioner in person.

                            versus

         STATE & ANR                                      ..... Respondents
                            Through: Mr. R.S. Kundu, ASC for the State with
                            Mr.Peeyush Bhatia and Mr. Ankit Malik,
                            Advocates along with SI Bijender Singh, PS Okhla
                            Industrial Area, Delhi.
                            Respondent in person.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
                      ORDER

% 01.08.2017 Crl.M.A. 12302/2017 (delay in re-filing) This is an application for condonation of delay in re-filing the petition. For the reasons explained, the delay in re-filing the petition is condoned.

The application is disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 2186/2017

1. Notice. Learned ASC, who appears on an advance copy, accepts notice.

2. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.PC) for quashing of FIR

No. 948/2014, registered on 11.12.2014 with Police Station Okhla Industrial Area, Delhi, under Section 354-D IPC.

3. As per allegations, the petitioner was stalking the complainant for 3/4 days. The complainant called her husband on phone who came there. The husband of the complainant caught hold of the petitioner but he managed to get released and fled away.

4. On making a reference by the learned MM, Mahila Court, Saket Courts, Delhi, the parties have amicably settled their dispute in the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi. The petitioner has shown deep regret to the respondent no. 2 and assured her that the same shall not take place in future.

5. The respondent no. 2, present in court and is duly identified by the IO, submits that she has amicably settled the matter and she does not want to pursue with the FIR. She requests that FIR may be quashed.

6. Learned ASC through the IO submits that the matter is pending before the learned MM.

7. The petitioner present in the Court undertakes that he shall not repeat such behaviour in future.

8. In these circumstances, when the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and no purpose would be served in further pursuing with the FIR bearing No. 948/2014, registered on 11.12.2014 with Police Station Okhla Industrial Area, Delhi, under Section 354-D IPC. Hence, to secure ends of justice, the FIR bearing No. 948/2014, registered on 11.12.2014 with Police Station Okhla Industrial Area, Delhi, under Section 354-D IPC and proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.

9. The petition is disposed of.

VINOD GOEL, J.

AUGUST 01, 2017 "sk"