Harmandeep Singh vs State & Anr.
2018 Latest Caselaw 4547 Del

$~82
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                   Judgment delivered on: 03.08.2018

+      CRL.M.C. 3885/2018
HARMANDEEP SINGH                                         ..... Petitioner

                           versus

STATE & ANR                                              ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner :       Mr. Nitish Kumar, Advocate.

For the Respondents:       Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP
                           Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for R-2

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
                             JUDGMENT

03.08.2018

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL) Crl.M.A.29236/2018 (condonation of delay in re-filing) For the reason stated in the application, the delay of 26 days in re-filing is condoned.

The application is allowed.

CRL.M.C. 3885/2018

1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings emanating

from complaint case CC No.32/1/2014 Police Station Paschim Vihar under Sections 323/341/452/506(ii) IPC as also the summoning order dated 22.02.2016.

2. Parties are related to each other. The petitioner No.1 is the son of the brother of the husband of the complainant. Subject complaint was registered after a quarrel that took place between the two families with regard to distribution of the family properties.

3. With the intervention of other senior members of the family as well as the mediator, parties have settled their disputes before the Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts and agreement dated 17.07.2017 has been executed.

4. Respondent no. 2 is present in court in person and is identified by the Investigating Officer. She submits that she has settled the disputes with the petitioner and does not wish to press the complaint any further. She has also filed an affidavit in support of the petition.

5. Parties who are present in court submit that they shall maintain cordial relationship and not quarrel with each other. They submit that all disputes with regard to the use and enjoyment of their respective properties have also been settled.

6. In view of the fact that the respondent No.2 has settled the disputes with the petitioner and does not press charges against the petitioner, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in

futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. It would be expedient to quash the subject FIR and the consequent proceedings emanating there from.

7. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The complaint case CC No.32/1/2014 Police Station Paschim Vihar under Sections 323/341/452/506(ii) IPC as also the summoning order dated 22.02.2016 and all proceedings emanating there from are accordingly, quashed.

8. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J AUGUST 03, 2018 ns