HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MR. VIVEK KUMAR YADAV – Appellant
Versus
STATE & ANR. – Respondent
CRL.M.C.-1034/2021
CRL.M.C.1034/2021 Page 1 of 6
$~3
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of decision: 28.04.2021
+
CRL.M.C. 1034/2021 & Crl.M.As. 5259-60/2021
MR. VIVEK KUMAR YADAV
..... Petitioner
Through:
Ms. Amrita Mishra & Ms.Ritu Yadav,
Advocates
Versus
STATE & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through:
Mr. G.M. Farooqui, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State
with SI Faizan Ghani
Respondent No.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (oral)
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
1.
The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking
quashing of FIR No. 150/2018, registered at police station Shakarpur, Delhi
for the offences under Sections 376(2) (n)/323 IPC.
2.
Notice issued.
3.
Mr. G.M.Farooqui, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent No.1/State accepts notice. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for State submits that respondent No.2 is present through video conferencing
2021:DHC:1462
CRL.M.C.1034/2021 Page 2 of 6
and she has been identified as the complainant of FIR in question by the
Investigating Officer of this case, who is also present through video
conferencing.
4.
With the consent of both the sides, the present petition has been taken
up for hearing and disposal.
5.
The crux of the prosecution case, as noted in the charge-sheet filed in
this case, is that petitioner and respondent No.2, who is the complainant of
FIR in question, studied in same college in Jaipur, Rajasthan and became
friends in the year 2013. After some time, their friendship turned into love
affair and they entered into physical relationship many times till the year
2017. As per the complainant, petitioner made physical relations with her on
the pretext of marrying her, however, after some time he refused to marry
her with the lame excuse that his family was not ready for their marriage.
Aggrieved
with
petitioner’s
refusal
to
marry
her,
respondent
No.2/complainant filed a complaint against him, which culminated in the
FIR in question.
6.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that
with the intervention of respectable members of the society, the subject
matter
of
this
FIR
stands
amicably
resolved
with
respondent
2021:DHC:1462
CRL.M.C.1034/2021 Page 3 of 6
No.2/complainant in terms of Deed of Settlement dated 12.02.2021.
7.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that both the sides have moved
on in their lives and in fact, respondent No.2 has recently got engaged to
some other person and is likely to get married soon. It is submitted that both
the sides have decided to give quietus to their inter se dispute and therefore,
in the interest of justice, the present petition be allowed.
8.
Respondent No.2, who is present through video conferencing, has
affirmed the factum of having resolved the subject matter of this FIR with
petitioner in terms of Deed of Settlement dated 12.02.2021 as also contents
of her affidavit dated 20.02.2021 filed in support of this petition.
9.
Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Crl. Appeal 233/2021
[arising out of SLP (Crl. No. 11218 of 2019], titled as Sonu @ Subhash
Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. against an order of dismissal of
application, where accused had refused to marry the complainant despite
having been in physical relationship and promised to marry her, while
referring to the principles enunciated in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs.
State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608 observed as under:-
2021:DHC:1462
CRL.M.C.1034/2021