In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the withdrawal of his appointment as SI in CISF, citing his earlier quashed FIR settlement. The Court declined to find grounds for interference, holding that the settlement-based quashing did not confer a clean chit.
The writ petition and pending application were dismissed with no orders as to costs.
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.
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 32
VIVEK CHAUHAN ..... Petitioner Through: Ms Pallavi Awasthi and Ms Mitali Tyagi, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Ripu Dhaman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr Abhishek Khanna, Advocates for UOI.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R % 10.12.2018
CMs 51419-51420/2018 (exemption)
W.P.(C) 13228/2018 & CM 51421/2018 (ad-interim relief)
W.P.(C) 13228/2018 Page 1 of 4
the quashing of the said FIR, the Petitioner filed Crl. MC No.337/2017 in this Court under Section 482 Cr PC. In that petition an order was passed on 20th March, 2017 which reads as under:
“By the present petition the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.110/2013 under Sections 323/354/509 IPG registered at PS Raja Garden Metro, Delhi on the complaint of Respondent No.2 and the proceedings pursuant thereto on the ground that the parties have settled the matter.
Learned APP for the State on instructions submits that in the above noted FIR the petitioner is the only accused and the respondent No.2 the only complainant/victim.
The Respondent No.2 Mr. Suman Lata who is present in Court and is identified by the Investigating Officer states that since the petitioner has tendered an unqualified apology, she has forgiven him and settled the matter with the petitioner with the intervention of the relatives and friends. She further states that she does not wish to pursue the above noted FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.
Petitioner who is present in Court and is identified by learned counsel affirms the statement of respondent No. 2 and tenders his unqualified apology. He assures that no such misbehaviour will take place with anyone in future and to show remorse the petitioner agrees to deposit a cost as well.
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, 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. Consequently, FIR No. 110/2013 under Sections 323/354/509 IPC registered at PS Raja Garden Metro, Delhi and proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed subject to the petitioner depositing a cost of Rs10,000/- with the Juvenile Justice Fund
W.P.(C) 13228/2018 Page 2 of 4
Maintained by the Registrar General of this Court within four week.
Parties have signed this order sheet in acknowledgment of their statements made before this Court.
Petition is disposed of Order dasti. ”
W.P.(C) 13228/2018 Page 3 of 4
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
DECEMBER 10, 2018 rd
W.P.(C) 13228/2018 Page 4 of 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petition challenging withdrawal of appointment due to a settled squabble can succeed when the High Court dismissed the earlier criminal petition based on settlement without holding a fresh i
Whether the quashing of an FIR via settlement entitles the petitioner to a clean chit comparable to an acquittal in a full-fledged trial.
Whether the execution and termination of appointment letter can be set aside based on the petitioner's prior settlement of an FIR.
Vivek Chauhan
Union of India
S. Muralidhar
Sanjeev Narula
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
