Allowed

Mayank Solanki v. the State & Anr.

Delhi HC18 Feb 2019CRL.M.C./908/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court allowed a quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC regarding an IPC 323/354/341 offence. Based on a voluntary settlement, apology, and the petitioner's background, the court quashed the proceedings, ordering a deposit to welfare funds.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 387/2016 and proceedings quashed subject to deposit of Rs. 10,000 in welfare funds within two weeks.

Mayank Solanki Vs the State & Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~43

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 908/2019 MAYANK SOLANKI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Pinku Singh, Advocate

¶4

versus

¶5

THE STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, APP with SI Naresh Kumar, PS:Dwarka (South), Delhi Mr. N.K.Tiwari, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

¶8

O R D E R % 18.02.2019

¶9

CRL.M.A. 3618/2019

¶10

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of.

¶11

CRL.M.C. 908/2019

¶12

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.387/2016, under Sections 323/354/341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), registered at P.S.: Dwarka South, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶13

The petitioner and respondent No.2 as well as their respective counsel submitted that the parties, after having mutual discussions, have settled their disputes on their own free

¶14

will, without any force or coercion, vide Compromise Deed dated 6.2.2019 and the parties have no grievance against each other.

¶15

Respondent No.2, who is present in Court, has reiterated the aforesaid facts and submitted that since the petitioner has tendered unconditional apology to her and she has forgiven him, which fact has also been mentioned in the Compromise Deed, she has no objection to the petition being allowed and the FIR being quashed

¶16

The Investigating Officer (‘IO’), who is present in Court, has identified the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 and has also verified the settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the settlement arrived at between the parties and taking into consideration the age and socio economic background of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to give a chance to the petitioner to reform and reintegrate into the society as a productive member. This Court is also 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. 387/2016, under Sections 323/354/341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), registered at P.S.: Dwarka South, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed, subject to deposit of a sum of Rs.10,000/- within two weeks by the petitioner, out of which Rs.5,000/- be deposited in the Army Welfare Fund Battle

¶18

Casualties, Syndicate Bank, South Block, Defence Headquarters, New Delhi-110011, IFSC Code : SYNB0009055, Account No.90552010165915 and Rs.5,000/- in the Delhi Police Martyrs’ Fund, Account No.18200110036907, UCO Bank, IFSC Code:UCBA0001820 and the receipts of the deposits be filed in the Registry within three weeks. Copy of the receipts shall also be handed over to the APP through the I.O. within three weeks. In case the petitioner fails to deposit the said sum, the prosecution shall be entitled to move an application for passing appropriate orders.

¶19

Petition is disposed of in above terms.

¶20

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J

¶21

FEBRUARY 18, 2019 tp

Mayank Solanki v. the State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayank Solanki v. the 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

Sh. Dinesh Vs State

Gagan Kharbanda Vs the State of Delhi & Ors.

Sudesh Sharma & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Vikram & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Rakesh Kumar @ Noni Lal Gupta Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Kanwal Nain Vs the State ( NCT of Delhi) & Ors.