The Court allowed an application for quashing an FIR registered under Sections 420/468/471/34 IPC. The petitioners and the complainant had settled the dispute, with the complainant receiving payment and stating no further claim existed.
FIR No. 381/2013 under Sections 420/468/471/34 IPC and proceedings pursuant thereto are 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.
$~20
RAM KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioners
Represented by: Mr. Paritosh, Advocate.
versus THE STATE OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC with Mr. Jyoti Babbar, Advocate with SI Kamal Sharma, PS Patel Nagar.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
Crl.M.A. No. 11766/2018 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(CRL) 1918/2018
By the present petition the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 381/2013 under Sections 420/468/471/34 IPC registered at PS Patel Nagar, Delhi on the complaint of Respondent No.2 and the proceedings pursuant thereto on the ground that the parties have settled the matter.
Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State on instructions submits that the above noted FIR was registered pursuant to direction under Section 154 Cr.P.C. with the four petitioners as the accused and the respondent No.2 as the only complainant/ victim.
W.P.(CRL) 1918/2018 page 1 of 3
Respondent No. 2 who is present in Court and is identified by the Investigating Officer states that he has settled the matter with the petitioners before this Court in OMP Nos. 659/2008 and 646/2010 and copies of the order dated 30th October, 2014 and 31st October, 2014 have been placed on record as Annexure-P2 collectively. He further states that he has already received a sum of ₹ 5.50 crores and now he has no claim whatsoever remaining against the petitioners. He further states that he would abide by the terms of settlement. In terms of the settlement he does not want to pursue the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto
Petitioners who are present in Court and are identified by the learned counsel affirm the statement of respondent No.2 and undertake to abide by the terms of settlement arrived at between the parties.
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.
Consequently, FIR No. 381/2013 under Sections 420/468/471/34 IPC registered at PS Patel Nagar, Delhi and proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed.
Parties have signed this order sheet in acknowledgment of their statements made before this Court.
page 2 of 3
W.P.(CRL) 1918/2018
Petition is disposed of. Order dasti.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
JULY 02, 2018 ‘yo’
page 3 of 3
W.P.(CRL) 1918/2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR and proceedings should be quashed given that the parties have amicably settled the matter.
Whether there is a legal impediment to quashing the FIR in view of the full settlement.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
RAM KUMAR & ORS
THE STATE OF DELHI
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
