Allowed

Aftab Khan and Anr. v. State and Ors.

Delhi HC1 Mar 2024CRL.M.C./1754/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Section 482 petition sought quashing of FIR No.600/2014 under Sections 308/34 IPC after the parties settled via a compromise deed with Rs.75,000 paid to complainants. The Court, citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.600/2014 under Sections 308/34 IPC at PS Khajoori Khas quashed along with all consequential proceedings

Aftab Khan and Anr. Vs State and Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~83

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CRL.M.C. 1754/2024 AFTAB KHAN AND ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Salim Malik and Ms. Shavana, Advs. with petitioners in person versus STATE AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Raghuinder Verma, APP for State with Insp. Dinesh Chandra PS Khajuri Khas Mr. Huzaif Malik, Adv. for R2 and 3 with respondents in person

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

¶5

O R D E R % 01.03.2024

¶6

CRL.M.A. 6713/2024 (exemption)

¶7

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶8

Application stands disposed of.

¶9

CRL.M.C. 1754/2024 & CRL.M.A. 6714/2024 (stay)

¶10

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No.600/2014 under Sections 308/34 IPC registered at Police Station Khajoori Khas, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement.

¶11

Issue notice. The learned APP for the State accepts notice. He submits that since the parties have arrived at a settlement, the State has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.

¶12

On instructions from the I.O, the learned APP submits that the injuries

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 04/03/2024 at 11:16:05

¶15

suffered by the private respondents were simple in nature.

¶16

The petitioner nos. 1 and the petitioner no. 2, who is brother of petitioner no. 1, as well as, respondent nos. 2 and 3 are present in the Court and they have been identified by their respective counsel and by the Investigating Officer Insp. Dinesh Chandra PS Khajuri Khas.

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that present FIR was registered at the instance of the respondent no. 3. In the complaint it was alleged by the respondent no. 3 that he was residing on rent in the property of the father of the petitioners. Due to an argument between the parties relating to the electricity bill, an altercation took place between the parties wherein the respondent no. 2 and 3 were beaten by the petitioners, which led to the registration of the FIR.

¶18

During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties arrived at a settlement, terms whereof were reduced in writing in the form of compromise deed dated 20.02.2024, which is annexed as Annexure P13 to the present petition.

¶19

It is a term of the settlement between the parties that the petitioners shall pay a total sum of Rs.75,000/- to the respondent nos.2 and 3 towards full and final settlement, which already stands paid.

¶20

The receipt of entire amount of Rs.75,000/- is acknowledged by the respondent nos.2 and 3, who are present in court.

¶21

The respondent nos.2 and 3, on a query put by the Court, states that they have no objection in case the FIR is quashed.

¶22

In view of the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings, rather the same would create further acrimony between them.

¶23

This is a digitally signed order. 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 04/03/2024 at 11:16:05

¶24

At this stage, apt would it be to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303: (SCC p. 340, para 58)

¶25

“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.”

¶26

In view of the settlement between the parties, the ultimate chances of conviction in the case are bleak, therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings will not serve any useful purpose and it will be an exercise in futility.

¶27

It is, thus, in the interest of justice that the present FIR and all the other proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed.

¶28

Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR No.600/2014 under Sections 308/34 IPC registered at Police Station Khajoori Khas, Delhi along with all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed.

¶29

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶30

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶31

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶32

MARCH 1, 2024 N.S. ASWAL

¶33

Aftab Khan and Anr. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aftab Khan and Anr. v. State and Ors.

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

Harneet Singh Chawla Vs State

Ved Prakash Vs State, NCT of Delhi

Cisse Mamadou @ Sisse Mamadou Vs Narcotics Control Bureau

Anil Kumar Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Deepak Malhotra and Others Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

P..... and Another Vs the NCT State New Delhi and Anr.