Allowed

Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Pandey v. State of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC15 Jan 2016W.P.(CRL)/119/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court allowed a petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC, quashing an FIR. The dispute arose from an alleged theft of a mobile phone between closely related parties. Following the registration of FIR No. 784/2014 under IPC Section 380, the parties reached an amicable settlement on 06.01.2016, including a social apology and agreement to cooper

What did the court decide?

FIR No.784/2014 registered under Section 380 IPC at Police Station-Bhajanpura, Delhi was set aside and quashed.

Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Pandey Vs State of Delhi & Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~26

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 119/2016 & CRL.M.A. 674/2016

¶4

AJAY KUMAR @ AJAY PANDEY ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr D.K.Pandey, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr Ashish Aggarwal, Addl. Standing Counsel (Crl.). Mr Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for R-2. SI Yogesh Kumar, PS- Bhajanpura, Delhi.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL O R D E R

¶9

% 15.01.2016

¶10

The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No.784/2014 under Section 380 IPC, registered at Police Station- Bhajanpura, Delhi.

¶11

The subject FIR came to be registered on an allegation made by Ajay Koushik, the complainant, against his brother-in-law Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Pandey, the petitioner herein, to the effect that the latter has purloined his mobile telephone. Counsel for the parties state that better sense seems to have prevailed and the matter has now been amicably resolved with the aid, assistance and intervention of the respectable elders in the family. The parties have entered into a Memorandum of Settlement/Agreement dated 06.01.2016. The salient terms and conditions of the aforesaid Settlement/Agreement dated 06.01.2016 are as under:-

¶12

“1. That the first party has tendered a social apology to the second party and the second party has tendered a social

¶13

apology to the fist party consequent upon which the First Party would not pursue his complaint and undertake to co-operate to each other in getting quash the FIR against Sh. Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Pandey or extend any other co-operation in the proceeding.

¶14

That both the Parties have settled all dispute amicably. However both parties with co-operate which each other for legally disposal of the matter as referred above.

¶15

That now there are no grievances of any kind against either of the parties and the first party namely Sh. Ajay Koushik S/o Sh. Brajveer would also moved an application for the withdrawal of his complaint vide FIR No. 784/2014 U/s 380 IPC PS Bhajanpura Delhi.

¶16

That if need arises both the parties would moved to Hon’ble High Court of Delhi for getting quashed the above said FIRs and extend due co-operation to each other in this regard.

¶17

That the Parties admit that they have no grievance against each other what so ever.

¶18

That the above compromise has been arrived at out of free will without any force, coercion, undue influence from any side.”

¶19

Ajay Koushik, the complainant who is present in court and has been identified by the IO in the subject FIR SI Yogesh Kumar, states that in view of the circumstance that they are closely related as well as in view of the settlement arrived at hereinabove, he does not wish to proceed with the subject FIR.

¶20

Since the dispute which resulted into the registration of the subject FIR has been amicably resolved between the parties, who are closely related, without any influence, coercion or pressure, no useful purpose will served by proceeding with the subject FIR.

¶21

Resultantly, the subject FIR No.784/2014 under Section 380 IPC, registered at Police Station- Bhajanpura, Delhi, is hereby set aside and quashed

¶22

qua the petitioner.

¶23

With the above directions the writ petition is allowed and disposed of

¶24

accordingly.

¶25

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J

¶26

JANUARY 15, 2016

¶27

` mk

Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Pandey v. State of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Pandey v. State of Delhi & Anr.

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

Purshotam Vs State

Aash Mohd. @ Ashu Vs State

Pushpender Vs State ( NCT ) of Delhi & Ors.

Minor Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Saurabh Kumar Vs State

Bhagwat Marbles Vs Allahabad Bank & Anr.

Iram & Anr. Vs the State & Ors.

Aslam Vs State

Mukesh @ Raju & Ors. Vs the State ( Govt of NCT Delhi) & Anr.

Shiv Kumar Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

Bijender Vs State

Sunil Kumar Bhatia Vs State of Delhi & Anr.

Mohammad Zaigham & Ors. Vs the State ( Govt of NCT Delhi) & Anr.

Sumit @ Sunny Walia Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.