Quashed

Pankaj Gupta v. State & Ors.

Delhi HC6 Feb 2015CRL.M.C./3732/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed multiple FIRs registered at Police Station Najafgarh filed by neighbouring parties. Settled amicably without fear or pressure, the matter emphasizes maintaining neighbourly relations. However, the petitioner must deposit ₹50,000 with the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

FIRs and connected proceedings quashed; petitioner directed to deposit ₹50,000 with Prime Minister's Relief Fund.

Pankaj Gupta Vs State & Ors. — Domestic Violence | Delhi HC (2015)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA

¶2

and Mr.Anshul Garg, Advocates for the complainantsalongwith R-2 & 3/ complainantspresent in person. ASI Tej Ram and HC Sunita, PS Najafgarh.

¶3

+ CRL.M.C. 3732/2014 & Crl.M.A.12866/2014 (Stay)

¶4

PANKAJ GUPTA Petitioner Through: Mr.R.N.Mittal,Sr.Advocatewith Mr.AbhijeetSingh, Advocatealongwith petitioner present in person. versus

¶5

¶6

STATE & ORS Respondents Through : Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP. Mr.R.K.Naveen with Mr.Abhishek Goel and Mr.Anshul Garg, Advocates for the eomplainantsalongwith R-2 & 3/ complainants present in person. ASI Tej Ram and HC Sunita, PS Najafgarh.

¶7

+ CRL.M.C. 3756/2014 & Crl.M.A.12893/2014 (Stay)

¶8

PANKAJ GUPTA Petitioner Xy Through: Mr.R.N.Mittal,Sr.Advocatewith Mr.AbhijeetSingh,Advocatealongwith petitionerpresent in person.

¶9

versus

¶10

STATE & ORS Respondents Through: Ms.KusumDhalla,APP. Mr.R.K.Naveen with Mr.Abhishek Goel and Mr.Anshul Garg, Advocates for the complainantsalongwith R-2 & 31 complainants present in person. CRL.M.C. 335/2015&connectedmatters Page 2 of4

¶11

ASI Tej Ram and HC Sunita, PS Najafgarh.

¶12

CORAM:

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

¶14

¶15

ORDER 06.02.2015

¶16

Crl.M.C.No.335/2015 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.1113/2014 under Sections 354/354B/506/34IPG Act registered at Police Station Najafgarh. It is stated that the matter has been settled with the complainant/respondentNo.2 amicably without any fear or pressure.

¶17

Crl.M.C.No.3721/2014under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.225/2013 under Sections 341/323/354A/506/34 IPG Act registered at Police Station Najafgarh. It is stated that the matter has been settled with the complainant/respondent Nos.2 and 3 amicably without any fear or pressure.

¶18

Crl.M.C.No.3732/2014 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.228/2013 under Sections 324/354/506/34 IPG Act registered at Police Station Najafgarh.

¶19

Crl.M.C.No.3756/2014 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.341/2011 under Sections 452/354/506 IPG Act registered at Police Station Najafgarh.

¶20

Respondent No.2 and 3/complainants are present before the Court along with their counsel. The Investigating Officer present in the court has CRL.M.C. 335/2015 & connected matters Page 3 of 4

¶21

¶22

\ Xy

¶23

identified them. I have enquired from them whether all the matters have been settled with the petitioners amicably without fear and pressure. They have informed that all the disputes have been settled without any fear or pressureandtheyhaveno objectionto the quashingof the FIRs. They have stated that the cross-case (CRL.M.C. 403/2015) has also been settled with their free consent.

¶24

The petitionsare supportedby the affidavitof the parties.Theparties are neighbours. In the interest of justice and to enable the parties to maintain their neighbourly relations FIR No.1113/2014 under Sections 354/354B/506/34 IPC Act registered at Police Station Najafgarh; FIR No.225/2013 under Sections 341/323/354A/506/34 IPC Act registered at Police StationNajafgarh;FIR No.228/2013under Sections324/354/506/34 IPC Act registeredat Police StationNajafgarh;and FIR No.341/2011under Sections452/354/506IPC Act registeredat Police StationNajafgarhand all the proceedingsemanatingtherefromare quashed.

¶25

The petitionersare, however, burdenedwith costs of ^50,000/-to be depositedwith the Prime Minister'sRelief Fund within two weeks. The Registryshall ensurethe complianceofthe order.

¶26

The petitions are disposed of accordingly.All pending applications also stand disposed of.

Sfl^GARG, J.

FEBRUARY 06, 2015

CRL.M.C. 335/2015& connectedmatters

¶31

P4 of4

¶32

Pankaj Gupta v. State & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Gupta v. State & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Vijay Kumar Kadam Vs State & Anr.

Bhagwan Dass Vs State of Delhi

Govind Vs State

Pankaj Gupta & Anr. Vs the State & Anr.

Babloo Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Krishna Vs State (Govt. of Nct) of Delhi & Anr.