Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR under Sections 323, 324, 341, 354, and 34 IPC alleging sexual assault, arguing that the parties had settled the matter. The court accepted the settlement and found no useful purpose to continue proceedings, leading to the quashing of the FIR.
FIR No.447/2013 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.
$~30
| versus | ||
|---|---|---|
| STATE & ORS | .... Respondents | |
| Represented by: | Ms.Suman Saharan, proxy | |
| counsel for Mr.R.S.Kundu, | ||
| ASC for the State with SI | ||
| Amrish Giri, Cyber | ||
| Cell,/Central | ||
| Mr.Amit Wadhwa, Advocate | ||
| for respondents No.2 & 3 |
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R % 21.05.2018
By the present petition the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.447/2013 under Sections 323/324/341/354/34 IPC registered at PS I.P.Estate, New Delhi on the complaint of Respondent No.2 and the proceedings pursuant thereto on the ground that the parties have settled the matter.
Learned proxy counsel for the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State on instructions from Investigating Officer submits that in the above-noted FIR besides the four petitioners, one more accused namely Indu Mahajan is arrayed against whom a charge sheet has also been filed who has not been made a petitioner and besides the respondent No.2 the complainant/ W.P.(CRL) 290/2018 Page 1 of 3
victim and respondent No.3, there is another victim namely Shreshtha Sharma who has not been impleaded as respondent.
On the oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner, Indu Mahajan is impleaded as petitioner No.5 and Shreshtha Sharma is impleaded as respondent No.4. Amended Memo of parties is taken on record.
Respondents No.2, 3 and the newly added respondent No.4 who are present in Court and are identified by the learned counsel and the Investigating Officer, state that the parties have settled the matter holistically vide Memorandum of Settlement dated 1st October, 2016 whereafter the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.
As the parties have settled the matter, the respondents No.2, 3, 4 do not wish to pursue the above-noted FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto and undertake to abide by the terms of settlement arrive at between the parties.
Petitioners No.1 to 5 who are present in Court and are identified by the learned counsel, affirm the statement of respondent No.2, 3 and 4 and undertake to abide by the terms of settlement.
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, rather the same would create further acrimony between them, 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.
W.P.(CRL) 290/2018
Page 2 of 3
Consequently, FIR No.447/2013 under Sections 323/324/341/354/34 IPC registered at PS I.P.Estate, New Delhi and proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed.
Parties have signed this order sheet in acknowledgment of their statements made before this Court.
Petition is disposed of. Order dasti.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
MAY 21, 2018 ‘rk’
Page 3 of 3
W.P.(CRL) 290/2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether FIR and proceedings should be quashable upon settlement of matters by all parties.
Whether there is a legal impediment in quashing the FIR when parties have amicably resolved differences.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Swati Mahajan & Ors
State & Ors
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
