Quashed

Sameer@ Munna@ Mir Ulla v. State & Anr.

Delhi HC13 Feb 2018CRL.M.C./767/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Delhi quashed FIR No.648/2014 under Section 354 IPC and consequent proceedings, holding that no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing criminal trials after a settlement and compromise deed dated 07.12.2017 between neighbours, with the prosecution unwilling to press charges.

What did the court decide?

Quashed FIR No.648/2014 under Section 354 IPC and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom.

Sameer@ Munna@ Mir Ulla Vs State & Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~68

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 767/2018

¶4

SAMEER@ MUNNA@ MIR ULLA ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms. Poonam Tyagi, Advocate.

¶6

versus STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. SI Malkhan Singh, PS Sarita Vihar.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA O R D E R % 13.02.2018

¶9

Crl.M.A.2785/2018 (exemption)

¶10

Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

CRL.M.C. 767/2018

¶12

The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.648/2014 under Section 354 IPC, Police Station Sarita Vihar on the basis of a settlement.

¶13

It is contended that the petitioner and the respondent No.2 are neighbours. It is contended that the parties with the intervention of well wishers, relatives and friends have entered into a settlement and a Compromise Deed/Settlement dated 07.12.2017 has been executed between the parties.

¶14

CRL.M.C. 767/2018

¶15

Page 1

¶16

Respondent No.2 is present in person, represented by the counsel and is identified by the Investigating Officer. She submits that she has settled the disputes with the petitioner and does not wish to press any charges against the petitioner.

¶17

In view of the fact that the parties have settled their disputes and a Compromise Deed/Settlement dated 07.12.2017 has been executed between the parties, the parties being neighbours and the fact that the respondent No.2 does not wish to press any charges against the petitioner, in my view, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings as there is a slim likelihood of conviction. Further, in view of the fact that the parties have settled their disputes, it would be expedient and in the interest of justice, to quash the subject FIR as well as the consequent proceedings arising there from.

¶18

In view of the above, the subject FIR No.648/2014 under Section 354 IPC, Police Station Sarita Vihar and the consequent proceedings emanating there from are quashed.

¶19

Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

¶20

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

¶21

FEBRUARY 13, 2018 st

¶22

CRL.M.C. 767/2018

¶23

Page 2

Sameer@ Munna@ Mir Ulla v. State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer@ Munna@ Mir Ulla v. State & Anr.

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

Shalender Shukla Vs NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Aftab & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Dr. Ketan Desai Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Nikhil Tyagi & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Raj Kumar Bakshi & Anr. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi

Rajender Parkash & Anr. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.