Pankaj Kumar v. Harjeet Kaur & Anr

J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN, J: (ORAL)

¶1The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing an FIR No. 401/2002 registered with P.S. Sarai Rohilla under Sections 380 and 411 IPC as well as the proceedings arising therefrom and now pending in the Court of Shri Vidya Prakash, MM, New Delhi.

¶2The ground on which quashing is sought is that the matter has been amicably resolved between the complainant/respondent No. 1 and the petitioner. Not only is the present petition accompanied by an affidavit of respondent No. 1/complainant but a compromise deed between the parties has also been placed on reocrd. In fact, respondent No. 1, who is present in Court and who has been identified by the IO, states that she has no objection if the FIR filed by her is quashed.

¶3Since the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties and the entire case revolves around the statement of respondent No. 1, I see no purpose in continuing the present proceedings.

¶4Accordingly, FIR No. 401/2002 registered with P.S. Sarai Rohilla under Sections 380 and 411 IPC as well as the proceedings arising therefrom and now pending in the Court of Shri Vidya Prakash, MM, New Delhi are quashed.

¶5The present petition stands disposed in the above terms

¶6Dasti.

MANMOHAN, J AUGUST 18, 2008 rb

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl . M.C. No. 39/2007 % DATE OF DECISION : 18th AUGUST, 2008 SHRI PANKAJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.(appearance not given), Advocate versus SMT. HARJEET KAUR & ANR. ….Respondents Through: Mr. R.N. Vats, APP for the State. SI Maha Singh, P.S. Sarai Rohilla. Ms. Harjeet Kaur, Respondent No. 1 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?