Partly allowed

Vasudev Juneja & Ors. v. State & Anr.

Delhi HC8 Feb 2019CRL.M.C./83/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC. The Court found that the matter was settled via a Compromise Deed executed by the parties, with terms complied with. Finding no fruitful purpose in continuing criminal proceedings, the FIR and related proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 107/2014 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

Vasudev Juneja & Ors. Vs State & Anr. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 83/2019 & CRL.M.A.392/2019 VASUDEV JUNEJA & ORS. .... Petitioners Through: Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate

¶4

versus

¶5

STATE & ANR. ... Respondents Through: Mr. Ashish Dutta, APP with SI Deepak Mahla, PS: Janakpuri, New Delhi Mr. M.P. Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

¶8

O R D E R % 08.02.2019

¶9

Status report has been filed, wherein it is stated that the respondent No.2 has executed a Special Power of Attorney (‘SPA’) in favour of Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta.

¶10

The petitioners have moved the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.107/2014, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at PS:Janak Puri, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶11

The petitioners and the SPA of respondent No.2 as well as their respective counsel submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties on their own free will, without any force, pressure or coercion, vide Compromise Deed dated

¶12

22.2.2017, in terms whereof the respondent No.2 has already got the jewellery items and also four policies under the LIC Single Premium Endowment Plan, totalling Rs.19,43,700/have been prepared in favour of her children.

¶13

SPA of respondent No.2, who is present in Court, has reiterated the aforesaid facts and submitted that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, he has no objection to the petition being allowed and the FIR being quashed.

¶14

The Investigating Officer (‘IO’), who is present in Court, has identified the petitioners as well as the SPA of respondent No.2 and the IO has also verified the Compromise Deed executed between the parties.

¶15

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the settlement arrived at between the parties and the terms of the settlement having been complied with, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the parties entangled in the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, FIR No. 107/2014, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at PS:Janak Puri, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

¶16

Petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending application is also disposed of.

¶17

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J

¶18

FEBRUARY 08, 2019/tp

Vasudev Juneja & Ors. v. State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasudev Juneja & Ors. 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

Uma Kant Singh Tomar & Anr. Vs State & Anr.

Munna Kumar Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Uma Kant Singh Tomar Vs the State & Anr.

Manoj Kumar Vs State ( NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Krishan Meghwal Vs State ( Govt of NCT Delhi) & Anr.

Varun Gupta Vs State & Ors.