Dismissed

Jayant Kumar Yadav v. State & Ors.

Delhi HC9 Nov 2016W.P.(CRL)/3222/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed an FIR under Sections 279/338 IPC filed for a vehicular accident where the petitioner was driving a motorcycle. The petitioner compensated the respondents, who expressed no willingness to pursue the matter, leading to the settlement and quashing of the FIR.

What did the court decide?

FIR quashed, subject to realization of cheque; deposit of Rs. 20,000 returned to petitioner.

Jayant Kumar Yadav Vs State & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~47

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(CRL) 3222/2016 JAYANT KUMAR YADAV ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Partap Singh, Adv. versus

¶4

STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC and Mr. Peeyush Bhatia, Adv. with Inspector Suresh Kaushik PS Delhi Cantt. Respondent nos.2 & 3 in person.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK O R D E R % 09.11.2016

¶6

Crl.M.A.17452/2016 (Exemption)

¶7

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶8

Application is disposed of.

¶9

Crl.M.A.17453/2016 (Delay)

¶10

For the reasons as stated in the application, delay in re-filing is condoned.

¶11

Application is disposed of.

¶12

W.P.(CRL) 3222/2016

¶13

On the complaint of respondent no.3, present FIR No.0022/2016 under Sections 279/338 IPC was registered at Delhi Cantt against petitioner.

¶14

As per FIR, petitioner while driving motorcycle had hit respondent no.2 resulting grievous injuries to him. Petitioners and respondent nos.2 & 3 have settled their disputes with the intervention of their common friends. Respondent nos.2 & 3 are present in Court and submit that they are not willing to pursue the FIR any further as petitioner has compensated them towards mental pain, agony and other miscellaneous expenses by paying 30,000/-. 10,000/- is stated to have already been paid and `20,000/- vide cheque bearing no.838524 dated 9^th November, 2016 drawn at SBI is handed over to respondent no.2 in Court.

¶15

In view of the settlement arrived at between petitioner and respondent nos.2 & 3, the FIR No.0022/2016 under Sections 279/338 IPC registered at Delhi Cantt, which is at the investigation stage, is quashed, subject to realization of cheque handed over by petitioner to respondent no.2. Learned counsel for petitioner has further pointed out that a demand draft for `20,000/- has been deposited before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and same may be directed to be released to petitioner. Let demand draft be returned to petitioner.

¶16

Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶17

A.K. PATHAK, J.

¶18

NOVEMBER 09, 2016/ dk

Jayant Kumar Yadav v. State & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayant Kumar Yadav 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

Lakshmi Vs Stat (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Master Khushal Malik & Anr. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Shanky Metals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs the State & Anr.

Rakesh Sharma Vs State

Jagbandhu Dass @ Tukku Vs State

Iqbal Hussain Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rattan Singh Vs State

Ranbir Singh Vs State

Jai Parkash Vs State & Another

Harpreet Singh Vs Harpreet Kaur & Anr.

Shanky Metals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs the State & Anr.

R K Tandon Vs Kanegrade Flavours & Ingredients Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Pankaj Pandey Vs Deepti & Anr.

Anil Katariya & Ors. Vs State & Anr.