The High Court of Delhi quashed the FIR and consequent proceedings for sexual assault under a compromise between parties, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.10,000 as costs.
FIR No.748/2015 registered under Section 354(A) IPC and consequent proceedings quashed subject to depreciation of costs of Rs.10,000 deposited by petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~15
| + CRL.M.C. 154/2016 |
||
|---|---|---|
| WASIM RAZA ZAIDI | ..... Petitioner | |
| Through: | Mr Anup Kumar | Sinha and Mr Arun |
| versus | Kumar, Advs. alon | gwith petitioner in person |
| STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & AN | R | ..... Respondents |
| Through: | Mr Ashok Kumar | Garg, Additonal Public |
| Prosecutor for the S | tate | |
| Counsel for no.2/complainant alongwith complain |
the respondent (presence not given) ant in person |
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
O R D E R
% 13.01.2016
This is a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.748/2015 registered at Police Station I.P. Estate, New Delhi under Section 354(A) IPC and consequent proceedings emanating therefrom on the ground that the parties have compromised the matter.
The FIR in the instant case was registered on the basis of a complaint made by respondent No.2/complainant – Ms. Yogita Baxla on 03.12.2015 she came to Pant Hospital for medical check-up of her brother and contacted the petitioner Wasim. The doctor checked up her brother and referred for Ecko test. The petitioner took her to Lok Nayak Hospital and at 1.30 pm he forcibly kissed her. She objected many times and asked him to go down stairs. In the meanwhile the security guard came there and took them to security office. She further stated that she want action against the petitioner.
The respondent No.2/complainant – Ms.Yogita Baxla is present in person (duly identified by her counsel) and submits that she has amicably resolved all disputes with the petitioner voluntarily without there being any threat, coercion or pressure of any sort and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, she does not want any action against the petitioner and does not have any objection to quashing of the instant FIR.
Mr Ashok Kumar Garg, Additonal Public Prosecutor for the State submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, he has no objection to quashing of FIR, but since the State machinery has been set in motion on account of objectionable acts of the petitioner, it is
submitted that the petitioners be burdened with some cost.
Keeping in view the facts that the parties have compromised the matter with each other amicably, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, which will only be an exercise in futility and wastage of precious time of the Court .
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the FIR No.748/2015 registered at Police Station I.P. Estate, New Delhi under Section 354(A) IPC and consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with Advocates Welfare Fund within 15 days. Receipt of the same be placed on record.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
A copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the petitioner.
SUNITA GUPTA, J
JANUARY 13, 2016/rd
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR registered under Section 354(A) IPC for sexual assault should be quashed upon a settlement reached between the parties.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
WASIM RAZA ZAIDI
STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
YOGITA BAXLA
SUNITA GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
