The High Court of Delhi quashed FIR No.417/2015 and related criminal proceedings upon the parties recording a settlement and agreeing to abide by the terms of the compromise deed.
FIR No.417/2015 and all proceedings before the trial court and Juvenile Justice Board are quashed qua all petitioners.
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.
15# $~
| THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF D | ELHI & ORS ..... Respondents |
|---|---|
| Represented by: | Mr. Sanjay Lao, Additional |
| Standing Counsel for State with | |
| SI Praveen Kumar, PS | |
| Mandawali. | |
| Mr. Kumardeb Sengupta, | |
| Advocate for respondent Nos. | |
| 2, 3 and 4 with respondent Nos. | |
| 2 to 4 in person. |
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R % 11.05.2018
By the present petition the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.417/2015 under Sections 323/341/308/452/427/34 IPC registered at PS Mandawali Fazalpur, Delhi on the complaint of respondent No.2 and the proceedings pursuant thereto on the ground that the parties have settled the matter.
Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State on instructions from Investigating Officer submits that in the above-noted FIR the six petitioners are the accused, respondent No. 2 the complainant/victim and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 the other victims. He further states that petitioner W.P.(CRL) 771/2018 Page 1 of 3
No.6 is a minor, thus qua petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 a charge sheet has been filed before the competent Court and qua petitioner No. 6 a report has been filed before the Juvenile Justice Board, Kingsway Camp.
Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are present in Court and are identified by the learned counsel and the Investigating Officer. They state that petitioners are related to them, petitioner No.5 being the maternal uncle of respondent No.2 to 4 and rest of the petitioners are his family members. They state that they have settled the matter with the petitioners vide Compromise Deed dated 16th February, 2018, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-P2 to the present petition. In terms of the settlement they do not wish to pursue the abovenoted FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto as they have reconciled their disputes and wish to live peacefully in the society and will abide by the terms of settlement.
The petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 are present in Court and are identified by the learned counsel. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 and petitioner No.5 on behalf of himself and on behalf of petitioner No.6 his minor son, affirm the statements of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and undertake to abide by the terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
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, 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.
Page 2 of 3
W.P.(CRL) 771/2018
Consequently, FIR No.417/2015 under Sections 323/341/308/ 452/427/34 IPC registered at PS Mandawali Fazalpur, Delhi and proceedings filed before the learned trial court and the Juvenile Justice Board are hereby quashed qua all the petitioners.
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 11, 2018 ‘vn’
Page 3 of 3
W.P.(CRL) 771/2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed upon the settlement of the dispute between the parties.
DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
RESPONDENT NO. 2
RESPONDENT NO. 3
RESPONDENT NO. 4
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
