Dismissed

Mohd. Faisal & Ors. v. State & Anr.

Delhi HC16 May 2018W.P.(CRL)/1530/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions for quashing FIRs under IPC and POCSO sections were dismissed. The court held settlement is insufficient where serious allegations against a doctor harming other patients exist, and dismissal of a cross-FIR prevents settlement in the petitioner's FIR.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; FIR No. 118/2016 not quashed; FIR No. 119/2016 quashing rejected due to lack of settlement.

Mohd. Faisal & Ors. Vs State & Anr. — Child Custody and Guardianship | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA

¶2

I n I

¶3

W.P.(Crl.) 1530/2018 has been prefeiTSd by the petitioners^Mohd. Faisal, Yasmin and Samira Naaz for quashing of FIR No.119/2016 registered under Sections 354/356/379/506/509/34 IPC at PS I.P.Estate. It is informed that the matter has been settled with the complainant / respondent No.2 amicably.

¶4

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. On perusal of the content? of i the FIR No. 118/2016, it reveals that there are serious allegations againsf the petitioner - Dr.Rajdeep Singh for outraging the modesty;of a girl 'X' (assumed name) aged around 15 years when she has. visited him for treatment in his room at JPN Hospital. At the time of the incident, the petitioner was discharging his duty as a 'doctor'. Allegations against him are that while examining the victim / patient behind curtain, he touched the girl inappropriately. On victim's raising alarm, hdr mother and other relatives reached and objected to it. • ' 4. Seemingly, thereafter, FIR No. 119/2016 was got registered by Dr.Tanvi Gupta against the family members of the victim for misbehaving with her and for levelling false allegation against hbr junior i.e. Dr.Rajdeep Singh. 5. It is now urged by the parties that both the matters have been settled and they do not want to proceed with both the FIRs. f , 6. Since the allegations against Dr.Rajdeep Singh in'FIPv No. 118/2016 are serious in nature and the victim is a girhaged arourid 15 years and Section 10 POCSO Act has been invoked in the FIR, it is

¶5

Page 2 of 3

¶6

not a fit case to quash the FIR on the basis of mere settlement between the parties. The alleged act of the petitioner - Dr.Rajdeep Singh cannot be countenanced as it has dffect upon other patients who visit hiiri for treatment in the discharge of his official duties.

¶7

Considering the grave allegations, FIR No. 118/2016 cannot be quashed and W.P.(Crl.). 1516/2018 is dismissed. C

¶8

n n . *

¶9

1. When W.P.(Crl.) 1530/2018 was taken up for hearing, qdtice was given to the learned APP to file status report. On that, the complainant in the said case declined to settle the, dispute due to dismissal of W.P.(Crl.) 1516/2018 which was a cross-FIR. r

¶10

Since the complainant is not willing , for quashing of the FIR No. 119/2016, W.P.(Crl.) 1530/2018 is dismissed as not settled.

¶11

fp.GARG, J

¶12

MAY 16, 2018/tr

¶13

Page 3 pf 3

Mohd. Faisal & Ors. v. State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Faisal & Ors. v. State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankit Arora & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Suraj Vs State

Sanjay Sonkar Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Sanjay Sharma Vs State

Ramesh Chand Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Uma Sharma Vs SHO Gokul Puri & Anr.

Akhlaq Ahmed Khan Vs State & Anr.

Ajay Kumar Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Sanjay Sonkar Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Sharad Kumar @ Monty Vs State

Satyavati Yadav Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Shyamu Vs State

Sunder Lal Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi