Allowed

Hemant Jaggi v. the State and Others

Delhi HC13 Nov 2024CRL.M.C./1201/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes an FIR under Sections 336, 338, and 304-A IPC following a settlement between the petitioner and the respondents. The court allowed the quashing petition based on the Memorandum of Understanding, undisputed payment of the settlement amount, and a voluntary undertaking by the legal heirs of the deceased.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No.151/2019 registered at PS Mayapuri and all consequential proceedings.

Hemant Jaggi Vs the State and Others — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~18

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 1201/2023

¶4

HEMANT JAGGI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma & Mr. Ankit Parindiyal, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE STATE AND OTHERS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, ASC for the State with SI Deepak, PS Mayapuri Husband and daughter of the deceased.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

¶8

¶9

O R D E R 13.11.2024

¶10

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of FIR bearing No.151/2019 registered at Police Station Mayapuri for the offence punishable under Sections 336/338/304-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter “IPC”).

¶11

The brief facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR was registered at Police Station Mayapuri pursuant to receipt of DD No.20-A dated 2^nd July, 2019 regarding admission of Smt. Sunita Sinha (“deceased” hereinafter) in Mata Chanan Devi Hospital as she was injured due to falling from height. The nature of injuries opined by the doctor concerned as grievous. For investigation, when police reached at A-7, Mayapuri, Jaggi Pvt. Ltd., they

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/11/2024 at 12:18:20

¶14

found that the lift space on the first floor was not covered and it is alleged that the deceased fell down in the space left for the lift and had the space been covered, the incident could have been avoided.

¶15

It is submitted that deceased remained hospitalized for about 20 days and later succumbed to the injury sustained and later on Section 304-A was also added in the aforesaid FIR. It is submitted that the police after investigation filed a chargesheet against the petitioner on 16^th March, 2020. 4. The petitioner made genuine efforts at reconciliation and entered into Memorandum of Understandings dated 28^th January, 2023, (hereinafter “MoU”) with the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4. The terms and conditions of the said settlement are mentioned in the MoU dated 16^th January, 2023, which is annexed as Annexure-E to the petition. 5. The petitioner bore the medical expenses of the deceased when she was hospitalised and paid around Rs.1,40,000/through Bank Transaction/Cheque. It is submitted that the respondents have settled all their claims on payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the petitioner, which is in addition to the amount already paid. It is agreed that the private respondents shall not raise any claim in future in respect of the above-said FIR. It is further agreed that the parties shall not proceed against each other in any case whatsoever either criminal or civil in respect of the FIR in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Rs. 5,00,000/- has been transferred to respondent no. 2, who is the husband of the deceased. Respondent no. 2, who is present in person, acknowledged to have received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, which is more than the amount to be payable to him. He undertakes to transfer the respective shares to the other class one legal heir of the deceased.

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/11/2024 at 12:18:20

¶18

It is, therefore, prayed that the instant FIR be quashed on the basis of the MoU and as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 .

¶19

Learned APP for the State submitted that there is no opposition to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR in question in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. In the instant case, as stated above, the parties have arrived at a compromise and amicably settled the entire disputes without any pressure and husband of the deceased has received Rs.5,00,000/-, which is more than the amount as agreed upon in the settlement arrived at between the parties. 10. The petitioner is present before this Court and has been identified by his counsel, Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate and the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 and 4 are also present in the Court and have been identified by the Investigating Officer. 11. On the query made by this Court, respondents No. 2 and 4 have categorically stated that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have entered into compromise on their own free will and without any pressure. It is also stated by respondents No. 2 to 4 that the entire dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and they do not wish to pursue with the matter further. The parties also undertook that they shall abide the terms and conditions of the MoU arrived at between the parties.

¶20

Therefore, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the fact that the amount has been duly paid in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the present petition is allowed.

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/11/2024 at 12:18:20

¶23

Accordingly, FIR No.151/2019 registered at Police Station Mayapuri for the offence punishable under Sections 336/338/304-A of the IPC and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

¶24

The petition alongwith pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶25

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J

¶26

NOVEMBER 13, 2024 NA/st

¶27

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/11/2024 at 12:18:20

Hemant Jaggi v. the State and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemant Jaggi v. the State and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Agarwal Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Ritu Bajaj Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors.

Sachin Sharma Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Os.

Sandeep Yadav Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sandeep Yadav Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Archita Kothari Vs Ifci Limited