Allowed

Kartik @ Kartik Mahajan v. State of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC9 Jan 2024CRL.M.C./204/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition for quashing of an FIR registered under IPC 392, 394, and 345/34. The court noted that the parties had settled their dispute via an MOU and the complainant did not wish to pursue the matter. The FIR was quashed subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 25,000 with the Delhi High Court Bar Association.

What did the court decide?

The petition for quashing the FIR is allowed subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 25,000 with the Delhi High Court Bar Association.

Kartik @ Kartik Mahajan Vs State of Delhi and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~85

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CRL.M.C. 204/2024 KARTIK @ KARTIK MAHAJAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Mr.Hunnyver Singh, Mr.Gaurav Dixit, Ms.Ranu Rani, Advs.

¶4

versus

¶5

STATE OF DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Hemant Mehta, APP for State alongwith SI Sonu Singh. Mr.Vireshwar Tyagi, Adv. for complainant with complainant.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA O R D E R

¶8

% 09.01.2024

¶9

CRL.M.A. 820/2024 (Exemption)

¶10

Allowed, subject to all just exception. CRL.M.C. 204/2024

¶11

This petition has been filed seeking quashing of the FIR No. 241/2015 registered at Police Station: Kashmeri Gate under Section 392/394/34 of the India Penal Code, 1860, on the basis of a settlement.

¶12

In the FIR, it has been alleged that the complainant works as a delivery boy and had gone to deliver a jacket to the accused, who alongwith his friend cornered him and took his phone and purse. They also took his Metro Card, ATM card, and Identity Card.

¶13

The parties have now settled their disputes and have executed a MOU cum Compromise/Settlement Deed dated 11.10.2023.

¶14

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 13/05/2024 at 12:18:23

¶15

The complainant/R-2, who appears in person and has been duly identified by the Investigating Officer (IO), submits that the complaint was filed due to some misunderstanding with the petitioner. He submits that he does not wish to pursue the complaint.

¶16

Keeping in view the nature of the allegations and the fact that the respondent no.2 does not wish to pursue his complaint any further, I find that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the FIR alive, as it would rather cause an unnecessary burden on the State exchequer. This Court is also guided by the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi , (2013) 4 SCC 58.

¶17

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR no. 241/2015 registered at Police Station: Kashmeri Gate under Section 392/394/34 India Penal Code, 1860 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner are quashed, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit costs of Rs.25,000/- with the Delhi High Court Bar Association within a period of two weeks from today. Proof of such deposit shall be filed by the petitioner with the Registry of this Court and a copy thereof be also supplied to the concerned Investigating Officer.

¶18

The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶19

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶20

JANUARY 9, 2024/Arya/ss

¶21

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶22

Kartik @ Kartik Mahajan v. State of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kartik @ Kartik Mahajan v. State of Delhi and Anr.

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

Rameshwari Devi Vs State, NCT of Delhi

Afsar Saifi Alias Sonu Vs State NCT of Delhi

Arun Kumar Goenka Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Mukul Vs State NCT of Delhi

Soman D/O Balwan Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kanchan & Ors.