Writ petition sought quashing of FIR under Section 420 IPC after complainants reached amicable resolution and received payment. Court held offence was private nature without serious societal impact, allowing quash.
FIR No. 454/2014 and proceedings arising therefrom set aside and quashed qua the petitioner.
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.
#5
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
Date of decision: February 08, 2016
+ W.P.(CRL) 205/2016
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA ..... Petitioner Through Ms. Vidhushi Sharma for Mr. RCS Badhuria, Advocate along with petitioner
versus
THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Mr. Ankit Gulia and Mr. Vishesh Wadhwa, Advocates SI Prateek Saxena, P.S. Anand Vihar Mr. Mukesh Anand, Adv. for R-2 along with R-2/complainant
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No. 454/2014, under Section 420 IPC registered at Police Station- Anand Vihar, Delhi and the proceedings arising therefrom.
Shri Raj Kumar and Sanjay Kohli, S/o R.L. Kohli, who are present in Court
W.P.(CRL) 205/2016
Page 1 of 3
today and have been identified by the Investigating Officer in the subject FIR namely SI Prateek Saxena, Police Station- Anand Vihar, Delhi, state that in terms of the order dated 22nd January, 2016 passed by this Court in Execution Petition No. 162/2014, the complainants have arrived at an amicable resolution of all their outstanding disputes that led to the registration of the subject FIR against Rajeev Kumar Mishra, the petitioner herein.
they are no longer keen to proceed with the subject FIR and the proceedings
emanating therefrom.
disputes. [Ref. Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported as (2012)
W.P.(CRL) 205/2016
Page 2 of 3
10 SCC 303 ]. The offence alleged to have been committed in the subject
FIR are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society.
will be served by proceeding with the subject FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom.
disposed of accordingly.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J FEBRUARY 08, 2016 SD
W.P.(CRL) 205/2016
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether FIR No. 454/2014 under Section 420 IPC should be quashed given the amicable resolution of disputes between the parties.
Whether the offence in the subject FIR falls within exempted categories of serious/heinous offences preventing quashing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr.Referred¶6
(2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA
THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT DELHI)
PRAMOD KUMAR
SANJAY KOHLI
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
