Allowed

Sunil Kumar v. the State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi HC13 Jan 2016CRL.M.C./5161/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an FIR registered for alleged offences under Sections 354, 354D, and 506 IPC. The court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings based on a settlement between the parties. The petitioner was directed to pay the complainant Rs. 20,000 within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

The FIR and consequent proceedings were quashed subject to the petitioner paying the complainant Rs. 20,000 within 15 days.

Sunil Kumar Vs the State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

+ CRL.M.C. 5161/20 SUNIL KUMAR	15				..... Petitioner
	Through: versus	Mr petit	Arpet Bhalla, ioner in person	Adv.	alongwith the
THE STATE (GOV	T OF NCT O	F DELH	I) & ANR		..... Respondents
	Through:	Mr	Akshai Malik	, Ad	ditional Public
		Pros	ecutor for the	State	alongwith Sub
		Insp	ector Kuldeep	Yadav	Police Station
		Con	naught Place, Ne	w Delh	i
		Mr	Shantanu Kri	shna,	Adv. for R2
		alon	gwith the respon	dent no	.2 in person

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA

¶6

O R D E R

¶7

% 13.01.2016

¶8

This is a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.12/2015 registered at Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi under Sections 354/354D/506 IPC and consequent proceedings emanating therefrom on the ground that the parties have compromised the matter.

¶9

The FIR in the instant case was registered on the basis of a complaint made by respondent No.2/complainant – Ms. Ishani Chandra that on 10.01.2015 she was crossing the road in Connaught Place when the petitioner rubbed his hand on her entire back and when she confronted him, he tried to make her statement fallacious. She slapped him. The petitioner started shouting and running after her and threatened her.

¶10

The respondent No.2/complainant is present in person (duly identified by the Investigating Officer) and submits that she has amicably resolved all disputes with the petitioner voluntarily without there being any threat, coercion or pressure of any sort and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, she does not want any action against the petitioner and does not have any objection to quashing of the instant FIR.

¶11

Mr Akshay Malik, Additonal Public Prosecutor for the State submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, he has no objection to quashing of FIR. Keeping in view the facts that the parties have compromised the matter with each

¶12

other amicably, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, which will only be an exercise in futility and wastage of precious time of the Court.

¶13

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the FIR No.12/2015 registered at Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi under Sections 354/354D/506 IPC and consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed subject to cost of Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the complainant/respondent no.2 within 15 days by way of demand draft through Investigating Officer. Photocopy of demand draft be placed on record.

¶14

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶15

A copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the petitioner.

¶16

SUNITA GUPTA, J

¶17

JANUARY 13, 2016/rd

Sunil Kumar v. the State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar v. the State (Govt of NCT 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

Deepak Kumar Malik Vs State NCT of Delhi

Chetan Vs State ( Govt of NCT of Delhi)

Devender Kumar @ Munna Singh Vs State of Govt of NCT Delhi

Mohd. Islam Vs State

Wasim Raza Zaidi Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Gayatri Devi Vs State ( Govt of NCT of Delhi)