Allowed

Rajeev @ Pankaj v. State & Anr.

Delhi HC12 Jul 2024W.P.(CRL)/2790/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, through a writ petition invoking Articles 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC, sought quashing of an FIR under Section 307 IPC. The Delhi High Court, observing an amicable settlement executed by the brotherly parties, quashed the FIR and disposed of the petition in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 789/2019 and all consequential proceedings are quashed. The petition is disposed of.

Rajeev @ Pankaj Vs State & Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~15

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 2790/2023

¶4

RAJEEV @ PANKAJ .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Praveen Goswami & Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocates with petitioner in person. versus STATE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC, Crl. for State. Mr. Vijay Chauhan, Advocate for R-2 with R-2 in person. S.I. Vipin Shokeen, PS New Usmanpur, Delhi.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

¶6

O R D E R

¶7

% 12.07.2024

¶8

The present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C., 1973” ) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking to quash the FIR No. 789/2019 registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC, 1860” ) at Police Station New Usmanpur, Delhi.

¶9

Issue notice.

¶10

Mr. Amol Sinha, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing on advance notice, accepts notice on behalf of the State.

¶11

Mr. Vijay Chauhan, learned counsel appearing on advance notice, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

¶12

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 18/07/2024 at 12:30:45

¶13

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 are the real brother. The petitioner, who was drunk on 26.10.2019 at around 08:30 P.M., was asked by the respondent No. 2 to go to his house after drinking alcohol and not to abuse him. Thereafter, the petitioner started abusing the respondent No. 2, to which the respondent No. 2 slapped the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner returned to his house and went to the chakki shop and brought a knife from there and stabbed the petitioner in his chest on the left side, due to which, the respondent No. 2 started bleeding profusely, which the son of the petitioner, namely, Vinay and his friend Himanshu immediately took the respondent No. 2 to GTB Hospital on a motor cycle.

¶14

It is submitted that on the statement of respondent No. 2, an FIR No.789/2019 registered under Section 307 of IPC, 1860 had been registered at Police Station New Usmanpur, Delhi.

¶15

It is submitted that with the intervention of family friends, common friends, relatives and well wishers, the parties have amicably settled all the disputes and differences between them vide Compromise Deed dated 05.02.2023 which inter alia states that: -

¶16

(i) That the respondent No. 2 shall not claim anything from the petitioner in respect of the settlement,

¶17

(ii) That the respondent No. 2 shall cooperate the petitioner in getting the FIR quashed,

¶18

In view of the Compromise Deed dated 05.02.2023, the present petition has been filed.

¶19

The petitioner and respondent No. 2 are present before this Court in-person today, and they have been identified by their counsel and

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 18/07/2024 at 12:30:45

¶22

Investigating Officer concerned.

¶23

The parties have submitted that all the disputes have been amicably settled vide Compromise Deed dated 05.02.2023 and thus, no fruitful purpose will be served in continuing with the FIR. 11. The present petition has been signed by all the petitioner and is supported by his affidavit. The parties have reaffirmed the terms of the settlement and they also submit that the said settlement has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure and coercion.

¶24

Today, the complainant/respondent No. 2, who is present in Court, states that he has voluntarily settled all the disputes with the petitioner and has no objection if the FIR is quashed. 13. In view of the above facts that the parties have amicably resolved their differences out of their own free will and without any coercion and also the fact that the present matter is a family matter, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the proceedings, rather the same would create further acrimony between them. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.

¶25

Moreover, there is no legal impediment in quashing the FIR in question.

¶26

Accordingly, FIR bearing No. 789/2019 registered at Police Station New Usmanpur, Delhi, for offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, 1860 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. 16. The petition stands disposed of.

¶27

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

¶28

JULY 12, 2024 S.Sharma

¶29

Rajeev @ Pankaj v. State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev @ Pankaj v. 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

Dilbag Singh Vs the State Govt of NCT Delhi and Ors.

Ankit Tayal and Others Vs the State & Ors.

Ms.Rakhi Lall Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Dharm Pal Singh Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Anshul Aggarwal Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Ashok Mehta Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Nadeem Khan @ Guddu & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Kallu@ Manoj@ Manoj Kumar & Ors. Vs the State (N.C.T. of Delhi) & Ors.

Dilbag Singh Vs the State Govt of NCT Delhi and Ors.

Umesh Chauhan @ Ankit Vs the State of NCT of Delhi

Anuradha Shukla Vs Oravel Stays Pvt. Ltd. (through Its Director/Authorized Signatory)

Yuvraj Jain Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Aditya Khetrapal and Ors. Vs State through SHO Ps Aman Vihar and Anr.

Prateek Jain Vs State of NCT of Delhi