Ajay Chauhan vs State & Anr.
2017 Latest Caselaw 2790 Del

$~26
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                         DECIDED ON : 30th MAY, 2017

+                   CRL.M.C. 2350/2017
       AJAY CHAUHAN                             ..... Petitioner
                    Through : Mr.Arpit Batra, Advocate with
                              Ms.Abhilasha & Mr.Abhishek Jain,
                              Advocates.
                    versus
       STATE & ANR.                             ..... Respondents
                    Through : Ms.Meenakshi Dahiya, APP.




        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J. (Oral)

CRL.M.A.No.9522/2017 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 2350/2017 & CRL.M.A.No.9523/2017 (Stay)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.399/2014 registered under Sections 392/34 IPC at PS Nihar Vihar. It is stated that the matter has been settled amicably with the complainant / respondent No.2.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the file. Present petition has been filed only by the petitioner Ajay

Chauhan. Rahul, the other accused has not been implicated as a party. It is unclear if the settlement has taken place only with the petitioner or all the accused persons.

3. In the complaint, the respondent aged around 23 years, a teacher by profession, informed the police that on 25.05.2014 she had come to her parents' house. On that day, she along with her friends Anita and Neha had gone to Punjabi Basti, Nangloi to make certain purchases. When they were returning, at around 02.50 p.m. and were present near Defense Foundation Public School, a blue colour pulsar motorcycle came from the side of Nangloi. The persons on the motorcycle snatched her gold chain forcibly and fled towards biscuit factory. She gave description of the assailants. The petitioner and co-accused Rahul who was arrested and upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against them. Allegations against the petitioner and his associates are grave whereby they during day time dared to snatch the gold chain worn by the complainant by using criminal force. Merely because the matter has been settled by the complainant and she opted to resile from her statement, it is not a case for quashing of the FIR in question. The crime is against the public in general. The petitioner must wait for the verdict of the Court.

4. The petition lacks in merits and is dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MAY 30, 2017 / tr