Allowed

Hardik Verma @ Rajan Verma & Anr. v. the State & Anr.

Delhi HC15 Sept 2017W.P.(CRL)/92/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed two cross FIRs alleging sexual harassment and molestation where the petitioners and private respondents had amicably settled their disputes through a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 21, 2015. The court held that no fruits purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 978/2015 and FIR No. 987/2015 and consequent proceedings are quashed.

Hardik Verma @ Rajan Verma & Anr. Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAM DATT Signing Date:09.10.2024 15:47 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.

¶2

following cross FIRs:-

¶3

FIR No. 978/2015 under Sections 451/354(B)/509/323/34 IPC registered at Police Station Rani Bagh on the complaint of respondent no. 2 Meenu Verma in W.P.(Crl.) No. 84/20 16.

¶4

I -

¶5

(

¶6

FIR No. 987/2015 under Sections 354D/506 IPC registered at Police Station Rani Bagh on the complaint of respondent no. 2 Ms. Neelima Kamra in W.P.(Crl.) No. 92/20 16. Ms. Neelima Kamra is the sister of petitioner no.1 in W.P.(Crl.) No.84/2016. Ms. Meenu Verma is the mother of petitioner no.1 in W.P.(Crl.) No.92/20 16.

¶7

It is submitted that petitioners and private respondents have settled their disputes amicably. They were neighbours. A quarrel ensued between them on some trivial issue resulting in registration of the aforesaid cross FIRs. It is submitted that petitioners and private respondents now settled the disputes amicably vide Memorandum of Understanding/Compromise Deed 21St December, 2015. Private respondents in both the petitions are present in Court alongwith their respective counsel and have been identified by SI Parveen Kumar, Police Station Rani Bagh. It is submitted that they have settled their disputes amicably with the accused persons in the respective FIRs of their own free will and without any undue force, pressure or

¶8

coercion. They said they have no objection in case the abovenoted FIRs are quashed.

¶9

Keeping in mind the above facts and circumstances, no fruitful purpose would be served to keep the criminal proceedings pending. Accordingly, FIR No. 978/2015 under Sections 45 1/354(B)/509/323/34 IPC and FIR No. 987/2015 under Sections 354D/506 IPC registered at Police Station Rani Bagh and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

¶10

Both the petitions are disposed of in the above terms. Dasti.

¶11

Miscellaneous applications are disposed of as infructuous.

¶12

A.K. � J

¶13

4 �SEPTEMBER 15, 2017 RB

Hardik Verma @ Rajan Verma & Anr. v. the State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardik Verma @ Rajan Verma & Anr. v. the State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surinder Batra & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Rabbani @ Sameer Vs State

Manoj & Ors. Vs State & Ors.

Jitender @ Jeetu Vs State (Gnct of Delhi)

Ram Prakash Bhatia Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Kamal Kumar Kothari Vs Centrla Bureau of Investigation

Sourabh Sharma & Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Mishty Arora Vs SHO Ps Saraswati Vihar

Akash & Anr. Vs State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Van Thum Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Sameer Sandhir Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Rahul Kamra & Ors. Vs State ( Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Shri Satpal Vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors.