Raj Kumar v. State & Ors

O R D E R %

03.11.2017 It is submitted that petitioner and respondent no. 2 are neighbours. On the complaint of respondent no. 2, FIR No. 82/2011 under Sections 323/354/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Kalyanpuri. It is submitted that a quarrel took place between the petitioner and respondent no. 2 on some trivial issue, which had led to registration of the present FIR. Learned APP submits that husband and brother-in-law of respondent no. 2 had also sustained injuries in the quarrel. They have not been impleaded as a party in the matter. On the oral prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Jitender Kumar (husband) and Puneet Kumar (brother-in-law) are impleaded as respondent nos. 3 and 4. Amended memo of parties be filed during the course of the day. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are present in Court and have been identified by SI Sandeep Kumar of police station Kalyanpuri. They submit that they have settled the matter with the petitioner before Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on 12th July, 2017 vide 'Annexure B'. A perusal of 'Annexure B' shows that both, that is, respondent nos. 2 and 3 have signed the settlement proceedings. Respondent no. 4 is brother of respondent no. 3. He says that he has got instructions from the respondent no. 4 also that he has no objection in case FIR is quashed. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 submit that they have settled the matter with the petitioner of their own free will, voluntarily and without any undue force, pressure or coercion. They submit that they have no objection in case the aforesaid FIR is quashed. Keeping in mind the fact that a quarrel ensued between the neighbours on some trivial matter, which had led to registration of the present FIR and they have now settled their disputes amicably in order to maintain harmonious relations in future, in the interest of justice, FIR No. 82/2011 under Sections 323/354/34 IPC registered at Police Station Kalyanpuri and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti.

A.K. PATHAK, J. NOVEMBER 03, 2017 r.bararia

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3449/2017 RAJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Harsh Kumar, Adv. versus STATE & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. G.M. Farooqui, APP with SI Sandeep Kumar, P.S. Kalyanpuri for the State Respondent nos. 2 & 3 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK