Quashed

Manpreet Singh v. State & Ors.

Delhi HC2 Jan 2017CRL.M.C./4889/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Delhi quashed FIR No. 904/2014 under Section 324 IPC and proceedings based on settlement and compromise deed between parties, subject to petitioner depositing ₹15,000 with Juvenile Justice Fund.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 904/2014 under Sections 324 IPC and proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed subject to deposit of ₹15,000 with Juvenile Justice Fund within four weeks.

Manpreet Singh Vs State & Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

6# $~

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 4889/2016

¶4

MANPREET SINGH ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Lalit, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus

¶5

STATE & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. Ashok K. Garg, APP for the State with SI Desh Raj, PS Govind Puri. Respondent No.2 in person.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

¶8

O R D E R % 02.01.2017

¶9

Crl. M.A. No. 20265/2016 (Exemption)

¶10

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

CRL.M.C. 4889/2016

¶12

By the present petition the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 904/2014 under Sections 324 IPC registered at PS Govind Puri, Delhi on the complaint of Respondent No.2 and the proceedings pursuant thereto on the ground that the parties have settled the matter.

¶13

Learned APP for the State on instructions from Investigating Officer submits that in the above-noted FIR the petitioner is the only accused and the respondent No.2 is the only complainant/ victim.

¶14

Respondent No. 2 is present in Court and is identified by the Investigating Officer. He states he has settled the matter with the petitioner CRL.M.C. 4889/2016 Page 1 of 2

¶15

as per the Compromise Deed dated 7^th December, 2016 and does not wish to pursue the above-noted FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.

¶16

The petitioner who is present in Court and is identified by the learned counsel affirms the statement of respondent No.2 and to show remorse states that he would pay a cost of ₹15,000/- and assures that no such misbehaviour will take place in future.

¶17

In view of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved their differences of their own free will, volition and without any coercion and no useful purpose will be served in continuance of the proceedings, rather the same would create further acrimony between them, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto. There is no legal impediment in quashing the FIR in question.

¶18

Consequently, FIR No. 904/2014 under Sections 324 IPC registered at PS Govind Puri, Delhi and proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of ₹15,000/- with the Juvenile Justice Fund maintained by the Registrar General of this Court within four weeks.

¶19

Parties have signed this order sheet in acknowledgment of their statements made before this Court.

¶20

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

¶21

JANUARY 02, 2017/‘vn’

¶22

Page 2 of 2

¶23

CRL.M.C. 4889/2016

Manpreet Singh v. State & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manpreet Singh 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

Vivek Goldsmith Vs State ( Govt of NCT of Delhi ) & Anr.

Rajinder Kumar Vs State & Anr.

Rajeev Kumar & Anr. Vs State & Anr.

Sucha Nand Bajaj Vs IBN-7 through M D

Gaurav Thareja & Ors. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Jisan @ Bittoo Vs State NCT of Delhi