Surjeet & Ors. vs State Anr & Anr.
2021 Latest Caselaw 665 Del

$~25
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                             Date of decision: February 25, 2021

+      CRL.M.C. 628/2021 & Crl.M.A. 3093/2021
       SURJEET & ORS.                          ..... Petitioners
                        Through:   Mr. Shyam S. Sharma,
                                   Mr. Nishit Kush &
                                   Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Baliyan,
                                   Advocates

                        Versus

       STATE ANR & ANR.                      ..... Respondents
                    Through:       Mr. Amit Chadha, Additional
                                   Public Prosecutor for
                                   respondent No.1/ State with
                                   WASI Sunita
                                   Respondent No.2 in person

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                     JUDGMENT (ORAL)

%

1. Petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No. 769/2020,

registered at police station Sagarpur, New Delhi and consequent

proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner points out that due to

inadvertence, a typographical error has occurred in the Memo of

Parties and name of petitioner No.2 has been mentioned as

"Virender Kadiyan", whereas he has been named as Vijender in the

FIR in question and they are one and the same person.

3. Notice issued.

4. With the consent of both the sides, present petition has been

taken up for final hearing and disposal.

5. Mr. Amit Chadha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

State accepts notice and submits that respondent No.2 is the

complainant of FIR in question and she is present through video

conferencing and has been identified by the Investigating Officer of

this case, who is also present through video conferencing. Learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for State on instructions from IO

submits that petitioner No.2-"Virender Kadiyan" and Vijender,

mentioned in the FIR, are one and the same person.

6. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that the

subject matter of FIR stands amicably resolved between the parties

and therefore, the proceedings arising out of FIR in question be

brought to an end.

7. Respondent No. 2 present through video conferencing

submits that due to anger she had registered the FIR in question

against the petitioners and now the misunderstanding stands cleared.

She affirms the factum of settlement with petitioners as well as

contents of her affidavit filed in support of this petition.

8. This court is conscious that in such like cases, where the

complainant shall not be allowed to go free without imposing the

cost, however, keeping in mind the fact that the misunderstanding

has been cleared and parties wish to move on in their lives, this

Court is inclined to quash FIR, as no useful purpose would be

served in prosecuting petitioners any further.

9. For the reasons afore-recorded FIR No. 769/2020, registered

at police station Sagarpur, New Delhi, registered at police station

Hari Nagar, New Delhi and consequent proceedings emanating

therefrom are hereby quashed.

10. The petition is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of.

11. Pending application also stands disposed of.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE FEBRUARY 25, 2021 r