Allowed

Sikander Mirza v. the State & Anr.

Delhi HC15 Oct 2024CRL.M.C./2536/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings against the petitioner for causing voluntary injury (Sec. 324 IPC) based on a post-crime settlement and the victim's consent, while directing the payment of costs to the State Legal Services Authority for counselling POCSO victims.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 0250/2016 and consequent proceedings quashed subject to mandatory deposit of Rs. 25,000 costs within four weeks.

Sikander Mirza Vs the State & Anr. — Bail and Remand | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~8

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CRL.M.C. 2536/2024 SIKANDER MIRZA .....Petitioner Through: Mohd. Rashid and Ms. Shafia Aslam, Advs. with petitioner in person.

¶4

versus

¶5

THE STATE & ANR. .....Respondents

¶6

Through: Mr.Shoaib Haider, APP for State with SI Vishwas, PS Chandni Mahal (Mob. No. 9996631531).

¶7

Mr. Shabanat Hussain, Advocate for R-2 with R-2 in person.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R

¶10

% 15.10.2024

¶11

By way of present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 0250/2016 registered under Section 324 IPC at Police Station Chandni Mahal, Delhi on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes.

¶12

As per the allegations levelled in the FIR, the petitioner caused injury to the respondent No.2 with a knife.

¶13

Learned APP for the State, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is the only accused and respondent No. 2 is the only complainant/victim in the present case. It is further submitted that though the parties have compromised, some costs may be imposed on the petitioner, since the State machinery has already been put in motion and the allegations are of a serious nature.

¶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 02/07/2025 at 08:40:35

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 are known to each other and that present FIR was registered due to a misunderstanding between them. It is further submitted that with the intervention of family members and friends, the parties have amicably settled their disputes before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 10.03.2017, a copy of which has been placed on record. In terms of the said settlement, complainant is now left with no claims or grievances against the petitioner.

¶16

The petitioner, who is present in Court, has been identified by his counsel as well as by the I.O./SI Vishwas, PS Chandni Mahal, Delhi. The petitioner has shown remorse for his conduct and undertakes not to repeat the same in future.

¶17

Respondent No. 2, who is present in Court, is identified by the I.O. He states that he has entered into the aforementioned settlement out of his own free will, volition and without any coercion. He further states that he has no objection if the present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed.

¶18

The parties shall remain bound by the statements made in Court today.

¶19

In view of the above facts and considering that no useful purpose will be served in continuance of the proceedings, it is directed that the aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with Delhi State Legal Services Authority (Account No.18580110053263, UCO Bank, Branch Rouse Avenue, IFSC: UCBA0003364) within a period of four weeks from today. The amount so deposited shall be utilized by the Delhi State Legal Services Authority for providing counselling/

¶20

¶21

psychological support to POCSO victims requiring such assistance.

¶22

Proof evidencing receipt of deposit shall be filed with the I.O.

¶23

A copy of this order be communicated to the Member Secretary, Delhi State Legal Services Authority for intimation.

¶24

With the above directions, the petition is disposed of.

¶25

In case the proof of cost is not filed within four weeks, the I.O. shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application in this regard.

¶26

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J

¶27

OCTOBER 15, 2024 akc

¶28

Sikander Mirza v. the State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sikander Mirza 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

Hellmann Worldwide Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State & Anr.

MD Aashif Ansari Vs State NCT of Delhi

Pirtam Singh Vs State of Delhi & Anr.

Baljinder Singh Malia Vs State of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Gagan Kumar Vs State

Vinod Kumar and Ors. Vs the State and Anr.