KARAN GANDHI Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PREETI Goyal, a married woman with a 12 year old son, Gautam went to purchase a bicycle for her son from the shop of the petitioner, Karan Gandhi at Tilak Nagar. This casual meeting resulted in a friendship between the two and frequent meetings ensued, which abruptly came to an end on 10th June, 2006 at around 5 P. M. , when preeti and Karan were discovered together by Karan's father, mother and uncle. The outcome of the said chance encounter was that both were beaten up and abused in filthy language by Karan's relatives. Preeti goyal was pressurized into writing a note in her hand, with her address and phone number, that she was a married woman and she would not meet Karan in future. After a subsequent discussion on the telephone on 11th June, 2006 both decided to meet at Rajouri Garden, from where they took an auto for a park in Dwarka. In the park, having come to the conclusion that they did not have a future together, they formed a part for dying together. Karan produced a gun which he had brought with him and Preeti shot herself with the gun on her forehead and handed over the gun to Karan; The latter then shot himself on the head and thereafter shot Preeti on her head. Three pellets were recovered, one from the head of the petitioner Karan gandhi and two from the head of Preeti goyal. Preeti was rendered unconscious and when she came to her senses, she found herself in a nursing home. On her statement made to Sub-Inspector Sunil kumar, First Information Report No. 518/ 2006 was registered against the petitioner and her under Sections 307/309/34 IPC at police Station Dwarka.

(2.) AS fate would have it, the petitioner karan Gandhi and Preeti Goyal (the latter is arrayed as respondent No. 2 in the present petition) are both alive and have filed the present petition seeking quashing of the above-mentioned First Information Report. It is averred that, both have compromised the matter. Even at the time of grant of bail to the present petitioner, an affidavit was filed in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions judge to state that the parties had compromised the matter, which was got verified by the learned trial Judge through the Investigating Officer of the case. On the basis of the said affidavit, bail was granted to the petitioner on 5th July, 2006.

(3.) IN this Court also, the respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit praying for the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing of the First Information Report registered against the petitioner, wherein it is affirmed that she had filed a similar affidavit at the time of grant of bail to the petitioner by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.