Allowed

Sanjay & Anr. v. the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC9 Jan 2018W.P.(CRL)/71/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court allowed quashing of an FIR regarding molestation and harassment following an amicable settlement between neighbouring parties. The Court imposed a cost of Rs.10,000 as compensation for the State's investigatory expenditure.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.0469/2017 and subsequent proceedings quashed, but petitioner required to deposit Rs.10,000 with the Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee.

Sanjay & Anr. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~22

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 71/2018 SANJAY & ANR ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Umesh Kumar, Adv.

¶3

versus

¶4

THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. R.S. Kundu, ASC for the State. Mr. Premsagar Pal with Mr. Bhagat Singh, Advs. Mr.Honey Khanna, Adv for complainant. W/ASI Saroj, PS Chhawla.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

¶6

O R D E R % 09.01.2018 Crl. M.A. No.425/2018 (exemption)

¶7

Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Application disposed of.

¶8

W.P.(CRL) 71/2018 & Crl. M.A. No.426/2018

¶9

The parties pray for quashing of the present FIR i.e. FIR No.0469/2017 registered under Sections354/354B/323/506/509/34 of the IPC at police station Chhawala. The charge sheet is yet to be filed. Parties have entered into a settlement. They are neighbours. The memorandum of understanding entered inter se the parties is a part of the record. The complainant is also present in person. She endorsed the averments made in the petition. It is stated that the parties having amicably settled their disputes and having no claim left

¶10

against one another, this is a fit case where the prayer made in the petitioner should be granted.

¶11

The allegations made in the complaint have also been perused. Admittedly, no grievous injury has been suffered by the complainant. To secure ends of justice and noting the fact that the petitioner having entered into the MOU the trial would be an exercise in futility. This is a fit where the prayer made in the petitioner be granted. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the investigating machinery has been set into motion and the State has suffered expenditure for which the parties must compensate the State. Accordingly, while allowing the prayer made in the petition and quashing the FIR No.0469/2017 registered under Sections 354/354B/323/506/509/34 of IPC at police station Chhawala as also all the proceedings emanating therefrom, the petitioner is burdened with a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee.

¶12

Petition disposed of in the above terms.

¶13

INDERMEET KAUR, J

¶14

JANUARY 09, 2018 ndn

Sanjay & Anr. v. the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay & Anr. v. the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & 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

Pushpendra Vs State

Rajeev @ Bobby Vs State

Puschpender Vs State

Om Prakash @ Raju Vs State

Shiv Kumar Vs Commissioner of Police & Ors.

Muthuvel Palani M. Vs C Angala Eswari & Ors.

Jitender Bhai Shah & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

S C Aggarwal Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Pushpendra Vs State

Rajeev @ Bobby Vs State

Naveen Ahuja Vs State

Rajinder Singh Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Abhinav Vs State

Parul & Anr. Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.