W.P.(CRL)/2118/2023 of GEETA ANAND Vs STATE OF DNCT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(CRL) 2118/2023

GEETA ANAND

.....Petitioner

Through: Ms. Geeta Luthra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aadarsh Kothari and Ms. Sprima Jha, Advocates. with Mr. Aadarsh Kothari and Ms. Sprima Jha, Advocates.

versus

STATE OF DNCT

.....Respondent

Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC for State with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar and State with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar and

Ms. Amisha Gupta, Advocates.

Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Insp, PS-Defence Colony. Colony.

Mr. Nirankar Nagar, SI, PS-Defence Colony. Colony.

Ms. Sonam Solanki, SI, PS-Saket.

Mr. Ramphal, SI, PS-Malviya Nagar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R R% 10.09.2025

1. The present petition seeks the following reliefs:

“a) To issue writ in. the nature of mandamus thereby directing Respondent No. 1 to 4. to take appropriate steps for protection of the Petitioner from the Respondent No.5

b) To issue writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondent nos. 1 to 4 to necessary action against the Respondent No. 5 and Respondent No.5 may not be allowed to enter the house of the Petitioner without taking the permission from any authority as well as the Petitioner;

c) To restrain the respondent No.7 from creating any nuisance and to be only on second floor and should not come to other floors in order to disturb the peace and harmony of the petitioner till the time she vacates the house no. 026 Anand Lok as per the law;”

2. Ms. Geeta Luthra, Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, candidly states that the reliefs sought in the present petition have been rendered infructuous in view of the settlement arrived at between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 7, who has been previously deleted from the array of parties.

3. Ms. Luthra further submits that during the course of investigation in FIR No. 62/2023, registered at P.S., Defence Colony, under Sections 341/323/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the State had seized certain DVRs from the residence of the Petitioner. She submits that now, since the matter stands resolved, the said DVRs should be returned.

4. In response, Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC for State, submits that the DVRs form part of the case property. However, in the event the FIR itself is quashed, the State would have no objection to returning the DVRs.

5. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with the observation

that, as and when the parties move an appropriate petition for quashing of the FIR on the basis of the settlement, they may also make request for the return of the DVRs, which shall be considered in accordance with law and in light of the statement made by Ms. Bandhopadhyay.

6. The petition is disposed of.

SEPTEMBER 10, 2025 nk

SANJEEV NARULA, J