Allowed

Mayank @ Mannu & Anr. v. State (Gnct of Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi HC16 Jan 2018W.P.(CRL)/129/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR detailing snatching of a mobile phone after parties reached a settlement. The court imposed costs on petitioners despite state prosecution expenses, noting trial continuance would be futile.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 495/2015 under Sections 356, 379, 34 IPC and all subsequent proceedings; petitioners liable to deposit Rs. 10,000 costs each.

Mayank @ Mannu & Anr. Vs State (Gnct of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~30

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 129/2018

¶4

MAYANK @ MANNU & ANR.

¶5

..... Petitioners

¶6

Through: Mr Vineet Jain and Mr Girish Chaudhry, Advs

¶7

versus

¶8

STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

¶9

..... Respondents Through: Mr R.S. Kundu, ASC with Mr Premsagar Pal and Mr Bhagat Singh, Advs for State with SI Ali Akram

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

¶11

O R D E R % 16.01.2018

¶12

Petitioners are seeking quashing of the present FIR No. 495/2015 under Section 356/379/34 IPC PS Rajinder Nagar. The FIR had been lodged on the complaint of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 and the two petitioners are present in court today. They have arrived at a settlement. The compromise deed inter se the parties is Ex. PA. Parties shall be bound by the terms and conditions contained in Ex.PA. In this settlement agreement it is stated that on the intervention of the common friends and respectable/ elders in the family the parties have settled their disputes; they have no ill will left

¶13

qua one another.

¶14

The contents of the FIR have been perused. This is the case of snatching of mobile phone by the petitioners qua the complainant. Parties were not known to each other. In the course of the investigation the name of the present petitioners had surfaced.

¶15

To secure the ends of justice, this would be a fit case where the prayer made in the petition be granted as it would be an exercise in futility in continuing with the trial. Learned counsel for the State points out the investigation has been progressed. Charge sheet has since been filed but the charges are yet to be framed. His submission is that in case if the prayers made in the petitioner is granted it should be subject to payment of costs as the State has incurred expenditure.

¶16

While allowing the prayer made in the petition for quashing of an FIR No. 495/2015 under Section 356/379/34 IPC PS Rajinder Nagar and all proceedings emanating therefrom, petitioners are burdened with costs of Rs.10,000/- each to be deposited in the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.

¶17

Petition disposed of in the above terms.

¶18

INDERMEET KAUR, J

¶19

JANUARY 16, 2018 SU

Mayank @ Mannu & Anr. v. State (Gnct of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayank @ Mannu & Anr. v. State (Gnct of Delhi) & Anr.

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

Anil Kothari Jain Vs State of NCT Delhi

Komal Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Mohd Amir & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Rahul Mathur & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Darshan Chauhan Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Geeta & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Vikram Soni Vs State & Anr.

Kamal Tyagi Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Anil Kothari Jain Vs State of NCT Delhi

Nitin @ Nikke Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Mohd Amir & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Vijendra Singh Jafa Vs Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

Asong Singsit Vs State through CBI

Abhishek Sharma & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.