Dismissed
Isramuddin & Ors. v. State & Anr.
Delhi HCCRL.M.C./2593/2011
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Signature Not Verified
Signing Date:17.08.2024 16:51:44 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-
complainant. However, out of the said amount, only was received by her in cash on 20.8.2009 and thereafter, on 30.10.2009 when the matter was adjourned for recording of the compromise, she had backed out.
---------'-<
!
,---
3
·--------!.
20.8.2009, it is evident that technically some talks for compromise were initiated, but no categorical statement was made by the complainant nor any assurance was given to the Court that she would compound the offence, more so, she refused to accept the balance amount of {75,000/-. Under these circumstances, I feel that quashing of the aforesaid FIR will be against the complainant and improper.
'!
instant case.
V. K. SHALI,J
AUGUST 08,2011/RN
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal FIR should be quashed due to alleged concealment of vital facts regarding a compromise oath.
Whether quashing the FIR is permissible without the consent of the complainant when the initial contact was with the First Information Magistrate but a compromise was later reached.
Whether the seven contingencies laid down by the Apex Court for quashing an FIR are satisfied in the present case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Petitioners
Complainant
V. K. SHALI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court