Allowed

Anshu Singh @ Hanshu Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC10 Jul 2018W.P.(CRL)/1041/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Sections 308/34 IPC. Finding that the parties had amicably settled the matter via a Compromise Deed without coercion, the Court held no useful purpose would be served by continuing proceedings and quashed the FIR, subject to the deposit of costs.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 23/2016 under Sections 308/34 IPC and proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed subject to each petitioner depositing ₹5,000/- to the Juvenile Justice Fund.

Anshu Singh @ Hanshu Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

31# $~

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(CRL) 1041/2017 ANSHU SINGH @ HANSHU SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners Represented by: Mr. K.K. Tyagi, Advocate with petitioner in person.

¶4

versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS Represented by:	..... Respondents Ms. Iti Pandey, Advocate for
	Ms.Nandita Rao, Additional
	Standing Counsel for State with
	SI Rahul Sagar, PS Seemapuri.
	Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in person.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

¶6

O R D E R % 10.07.2018

¶7

By the present petition the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 23/2016 under Sections 308/34 IPC registered at PS Seemapuri, Delhi on the complaint of respondent No.2 and the proceedings pursuant thereto on the ground that the parties have settled the matter.

¶8

Learned proxy counsel for learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State on instructions from Investigating Officer submits that in the above-noted FIR the three petitioners are the only accused and the respondent No. 2 the complainant/victim and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 the other victims. She states that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 received simple injuries.

¶9

W.P.(CRL) 1041/2017

¶10

Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are present in Court and are identified by the Investigating Officer. They state that they have settled the matter with the petitioners vide Compromise Deed dated 25^th April, 2018, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-B to the amended petition. They further state that in terms of the settlement they do not wish to pursue the above-noted FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto and will abide by the terms of settlement.

¶11

Petitioners who are present in Court and are identified by the learned counsel affirm the statement of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and undertake to abide by the terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties vide Compromise Deed dated 25^th April, 2018 and have also apologised to the respondent Nos.2 to 4. Petitioners also assure that they will not indulge in any misbehaviour in future and to show remorse they undertake to deposit some costs also.

¶12

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.

¶13

Consequently, FIR No. 23/2016 under Sections 308/34 IPC registered at PS Seemapuri, Delhi and proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed subject to the each petitioner depositing a cost of ₹5,000/- with the Juvenile Justice Fund maintained by the Registrar General of this Court within four weeks.

¶14

Page 2 of 3

¶15

W.P.(CRL) 1041/2017

¶16

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

¶17

Petition is disposed of. Order dasti.

¶18

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

¶19

JULY 10, 2018 ‘vn’

¶20

Page 3 of 3

¶21

W.P.(CRL) 1041/2017

Anshu Singh @ Hanshu Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anshu Singh @ Hanshu Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi & 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

Shumayla @ Suhani Singh Sengar & Anr. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Kalu @ Rajinder Vs State

Nitin Verma Vs State

Girija Dabas Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sikander Vs State

Meenu Dahiya Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Aam Foundation Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

P.K.Verma & Ors. Vs State(Nct of Delhi)& Anr.

Nitin Verma Vs State

Girija Dabas Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sandeep Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Manoj Kumar Gupta Vs State & Anr.

Ms. Nisha Kumari & Anr. Vs the State (N.C.T. of Delhi) & Ors.

Jatin Chaudhary @ Jittey Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)