The petitioners sought quashing of an FIR alleging an assault. The court quashed the proceedings after parties demonstrated a genuine settlement and expressed remorse.
FIR No. 401/2016 and proceedings pursuant thereto quashed subject to payment of consolidated cost of ₹10,000/-.
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.
$~29
ASHUTOSH SHUKLA & ORS ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Vikram Singh and Mr. Ayub Khan, Advocates.
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms. Iti Pandey, Advocate for Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC for the State with SI Omparkash, PS Anand Parbat. Mr. Yogendra Chaudhary, Advocate for respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R
% 13.12.2018
W.P.(CRL) 642/2017
page 1 of 3
W.P.(CRL) 642/2017
page 2 of 3
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
DECEMBER 13, 2018
‘yo’
page 3 of 3
W.P.(CRL) 642/2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR and proceedings should be quashed in view of the settlement between the parties.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ASHUTOSH SHUKLA & ORS
STATE (GOVT OF NCT 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
