Petitioners sought quashing of FIR involving kidnapping charges on grounds of settlement. Court dismissed petition holding offence under Section 365 IPC is serious and settlement ground insufficient.
Petition dismissed; FIR and proceedings not quashed.
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.
$~6
Represented by: Mr. Aziz-ul-Hassan, Advocate.
versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms. Iti Pandey, Advocate for Ms. Kamna Vohra, ASC.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R
164 Cr.P.C. wherein he stated that he has gone of his own and was not kidnapped by anybody.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
MAY 18, 2018 ‘yo’
page 2 of 2
W.P.(CRL) 1088/2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether FIR punishable under Section 365 IPC should be quashed on the ground of settlement between parties given that the offence is serious in nature.
Whether the discrepancy in statements of victims under Section 164 Cr.P.C. affects the seriousness of the kidnapping charge.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Vijay Nagar @ Pappu & Anr
State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors
Mukta Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
