Quashed

Manjeet Singh & Ors. v. the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC10 Jan 2018CRL.M.C./116/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed three cross-FIRs lodged between family members regarding property disputes and criminal complaints. The decision was based on the parties reaching an amicable settlement, executing a compromise deed, withdrawing the suit for partition, and expressing a desire to restore family peace and harmony.

What did the court decide?

Quashed FIRs No.332, 333, and 289 with consequent proceedings; Ordered parties to deposit Rs.25,000 with Delhi Welfare Fund.

Manjeet Singh & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors. — Delhi HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA CRLM.C. 116/2018

¶2

¶3

CrI.M.A.498/2018 (exemption! in CRL.M.C. 119/2018

¶4

Exemptionsare allowedsubjectto alljust exceptions.'

¶5

CRL.M.C. 116/2018. CRL.M.C. 118/2018 & CRL.M.C. 119/2018

¶6

The petitioners,by the present petition, seek quashing of FIR No.332 under Sections 354/323/341/509/34 IPC, Police Station Amar Colony, FIR No.333 under Sections.354/323/341/509/34IPC, PoHce StationAmar Colony and FIR No.289 under Sections341/354/509/34 - \ IPC^ Police Station Amar Colony. The subject FIRs are cross-FIRs, lodged by the family members against' each other on account of various altercations. The disputes relate to partition of a property of the predecessor,,the father of Sardar Manjeet- Singh and Sardar Ranjeet Singh. The others are the family member of the said two" brothers.

¶7

Though,the petitionmentionsthat the FIR No.289/2016is also registeredunder Section307IPC,>owever,perusalof the FIR as well as the chargesheet shows that the same is not registered under Section 307 IPC and eyen the chargesheet has not been filed under Section 307 IPC. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, under instructions from the InvestigatingOfficer, submitsthat the said chargesheetis not under Section 307 IPC and it is an error on behalf of the parties to mention that the said FIRNo.289/2016 is under Section 307 IPC.

¶8

All the parties are present in Court and are represented by their counsel and are- identified, by the Investigating Officer. The parties submit that they have amicably settled their disputes with the

¶9

.CRL.M.C. 116/2018 & CRL.M.C. 118/2018 CRL.M.C. 119/2018

¶10

Page 2

¶11

¶12

interventionof other family membersand with a viewto put a quietus to the disputes between the parties and restore family peace-and harmony and do not wish to prosecutethe complaints against each other. The partiescontendthat they have enteredinto a settlementand have executed a Compromise Deed/Family Settlement Deed dated 11.12.2017. It is contended that, in view of the'settlement, the suit for partitionhas also been withdrawnand the partieshave now settledall their disputes with regard to the family relations as well as theproperties. ' , ' ,

¶13

In view of the factthat tlie parties are family membersand have settledtheir disputeswith regard to the propertiesand.restoredfamily relations and, have entered into a settlement for the purposes of restoring family peace and harmony;and the fact that the parties,do not wish to prosecutethe .complaintsagainst each other, in my view, no fruitful purpose would be served in,continuingwith the criminal proceedingsas there is a slim likelihood,of conviction. Further, it would'be expedientand in the interest of justice, to quash the FIR No.332 under Sections 354/323/341/509/34 IPC, PoHce Station Amar Colony, FIRNo.333 under Sections 354/323/341/509/34^IPC, Police StationAmar Colonyand FIR No.289 Under Sections341/354/509/34 IPC,. Police Station Arnar Colony as well as the consequent proceedings arising there from.,

¶14

Learned Additional. Public Prosecutor submits that, in case, the Court is inclined to exercise powers under Section 482, it should, be . subject to terms since the parties for resolution of their private

•

CRL.M.C. 116/2018 &CRL.M.C. 118/2018 CRLM.C. 119/2018-

¶19

Page3

¶20

disputesrelatingto a propertyhave used the Statemachinery.

¶21

In view of.the above, the subject FIR No.332 under.Sections 354/323/341/509/34.IPG, PoHce Station Amar Colony, FIR No.333 under Sections354/323/341/509/34IPG, Police StationAmar Golony and FIR No..289 under Sections 341/354/509/34IPG, Police Station Amar Golony and the consequentproceedingsemanatingthere from are quashed. .Both the parties, i.e. the members of the family of Sardar Maiijeet Singh and Sardar.Ranjeet Singh respectivelyshall deposit cost ,of Rs.25,000/- with' "Z)e//z/ Welfare Fund", Departmentof Women and Ghild Development,1A, Ganning Lane, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, within a period of two weeks. from today. Receiptof deposit of the costs imposedby this Order be furnished to the concerned InvestigatingOfficer within a period of ' .threeweeks,fromtoday. • . •_

¶22

• OrderDasti underthe signaturesof the GourtMaster.

¶23

i • • r ~ • • ; • • sanj:NJEE V SACHDEVA, J JANUARY 10,2018 st •' '

¶24

¶25

CRL.M.C. 116/2018&.CRL.M.C.118/2018 CRL.M.C. 119/2018 '

¶26

~ ^ . . y'''*

Manjeet Singh & Ors. v. the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjeet Singh & Ors. v. the State Govt 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

Arun Kumar & Anr. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Yash Kapoor & Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Raj Kumar Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

Ranjeet Singh & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

S C Aggarwal Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Jatinder Singh & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.