Allowed

Aman @ Monty & Ors. v. State & Ors.

Delhi HC20 Mar 2018W.P.(CRL)/2652/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This warrant matter involves the quashing of multiple criminal FIRs. The Lower Court examined the settlement between parties, noting parental objections to further litigation. The Court held that it is a fit case under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIRs to secure ends of justice, despite the victim's endorsement of the position.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.0414/2014 and FIR No.0415/2014 and all proceedings emanating thereto including FIR No.0415/2014 under POCSO are quashed.

Aman @ Monty & Ors. Vs State & Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA

¶2

registered under Sections 3 07/325 read with Section 34 of the IPC at Police Station Sagar Pur on the complaint of respondent No. 2 (Vineet). Parties are present in person. The second FIR which is FIR No.0415/2014 was registered under Section 354 of the IPC as also Sections 8 & 12 of the POCSO Act on the complaint of "N" '/respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2/'N' is present in Court. The petitioners in this FIR are also present.

¶3

Parties are neighbours. It is stated that the parties have settled their dispute and they want to bring all animosity to an end. Parties endorse this fact. Presence of the parties has been identified by the Investigating Officer as also by the learned counsel for the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that 'N'/respondent No. 2 in W.P. (Cr!.) No.2657/20 16 who is the complainant in the instant matter is most desirous of settling their dispute as she is stated to be 21 years of age and her parents are looking for a matrimonial alliance for her; in view of the fact that these proceedings are pending before the Court, it is difficult for her parents to find a suitable match. Respondent No. 2/'N' is present in Court and she endorses this fact. Parties nrav thcit the rrenf proceedings be quashed in terms of the inter-se settlement arrived inter-se the parties which is largely for the reason that the parties want to live in peace and harmony with one another in the neighbourhood.

¶4

Learned counsel for the State has opposed this prayer. It is pointed out that in FIR No.0414/2014, grievous injuries had been received by one of the victim i.e. Ajay. His MLC has been perused. Ajay is also present in Court. He also endorses this submission that

¶5

the matter has now been put to rest inter-se the parties.

¶6

Noting the above narration of facts, this is a fit case where to secure the ends of justice, FIRs need to be quashed. Accordingly, FIR No.0414/2014 registered under Sections 307/325 read with Section 34 of the IPC and FIR No.0415/2014 registered under Section 354 of the IPC as also Sections 8 & 12 of the POCSO Act at Police Station Sagar Pur and all proceedings emanating thereto are quashed. Petitions disposed of in the above terms.

¶7

INDERMEET KAUR, J

¶8

MARCH 20,2018 A

¶9

Aman @ Monty & Ors. v. State & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aman @ Monty & Ors. v. State & 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

Shahid Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Sunita Bansal Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Charanjeet Singh & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Charanjeet Singh & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Muslim Vs State

Dharambir Vs the Statr of NCT of Delhi

Baker Street through Its Director Rohit Agarwal Vs Sdmc & Ors.

Virender Saxena & Anr. Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Maal Alias Suresh Vs the State (Nct of Delhi)

Kamal Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Bunty Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Raju Vs State

Rameshwari Vs State

Mahesh Bansal Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.