Dismissed

Rajendra Prasad v. State & Anr.

Delhi HC12 Jan 2017W.P.(CRL)/107/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition for quashing an FIR under Section 354A IPC, the High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn by the petitioner. The Court directed protection for the young complainant and ensured her evidence be recorded expeditiously without harassment.

What did the court decide?

Exemption allowed on interim basis subject to exceptions; subsequent discharge of proceedings on withdrawal but protective measures enforced for complainant.

Rajendra Prasad Vs State & Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~47.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 107/2017

¶4

RAJENDRA PRASAD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Vipin Chaudhary, Advocate. versus

¶5

STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel and Mr. Tushar Sannu, Advocate along with Inspector Jai Narain, PS– DIU/ Outer, for the State. Respondent No.2 in person.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

¶7

¶8

O R D E R 12.01.2017

¶9

Crl.M.A. No. 587/2017

¶10

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

The application stands disposed of.

¶12

W.P.(CRL) 107/2017

¶13

Issue notice. Mr. Mehra accepts notice on behalf of the State. Respondent No.2 is present in person and she also accepts notice.

¶14

The petitioner has preferred this petition to seek quashing of FIR No.713/2016 dated 06.07.2016 lodged at PS – Aman Vihar under Section 354A IPC, premised on the MOU dated 29.12.2016 executed between the petitioner and the respondent No.2.

¶15

I have interacted with the complainant/ respondent No.2 in Chamber.

¶16

Mr. Ohri, on instructions from the petitioner, states that the petitioner does not place reliance on the MOU dated 29.12.2016, and the affidavit of respondent No.2 placed on record. He further states that the petitioner shall not rely on the same, or the affidavit of the complainant/ respondent No.2 filed in support of this petition in any proceedings whatsoever. He further states that the petitioner wishes to withdraw the petition at this stage.

¶17

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.

¶18

Looking to the fact that the complainant/ respondent No.2 is a young lady having a minor child to look after, and she is also working to meet her ends meet, and considering the fact that she is also embroiled in a matrimonial dispute with her husband, it is directed that respondent No.2/ complainant may not be put to any undue harassment in the process of investigation, and in case the charge-sheet is filed, by the concerned Court. In case the charge-sheet is filed, her evidence may be recorded at the earliest by the concerned Court while ensuring that she is not inconvenienced.

¶19

The complainant shall also be provided adequate protection against any threat or harm perceived by her in future, that may be perceived by her either at the stage of investigation or trial.

¶20

Let a copy of the order be communicated to the Delhi Legal Services Authority for consideration on the aspect of grant of protection to the complainant.

¶21

VIPIN SANGHI, J

¶22

JANUARY 12, 2017 B.S. Rohella

Rajendra Prasad v. State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad v. State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Kumar & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Shyam & Ors. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Yogendra Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Delhi & Ors.

Rajesh Tiwari Vs the State & Anr.

Ekluv Bhatia Vs State & Anr.

Ms Babita Mehta Vs State & Anr.

Satyavir Singh & Ors. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Anil Kumar & Ors. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Shyam & Ors. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Devender & Ors. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Sharvan Kumar & Ors. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Ashish Singh Vs Pushpa Singh

Kapil Manchanda & Ors. Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Bachan Kaur Vs UOI & Ors.