Hansraj v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
Case brief
What is this about?
A single judge order quashing an FIR registered under Section 174A IPC for petitioner's non-appearance in NI Act proceedings, accepting his explanation and undertaking to appear regularly.
What did the court decide?
FIR No.287/2023 and consequent proceedings quashed along with pending applications.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~19
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- W.P.(CRL) 2876/2024, CRL.M.A. 28084/2024 and CRL.M.A. 28085/2024
HANSRAJ .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Archit Singhal, Advocate
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Amol Sinha, ASC for State with Mr.Kshitiz Garg, Mr.Ashvini Kumar and Ms.Chavi, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
O R D E R
- % 11.11.2024
- By way of present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR No.287/2023 registered under Section 174A of IPC at P.S. Paschim Vihar West, Delhi.
- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject FIR came to be registered on account of the petitioner not appearing before the Trial Court in the proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 under Section 138 NI Act. He further submits that the petitioner had left the address which is available before the Trial Court more than 1 ½ years prior to being attempted to be served. In this regard, he has referred to the report of the process server, which also indicates that the present petitioner had left the address about 1 ½ years ago. He also submits that the petitioner had appeared before the Trial Court in the aforesaid proceedings and has also been granted bail.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR registered under section 174A IPC due to petitioner's absence in proceedings should be quashed.
Whether the petitioner's satisfactory explanation and appearance before the Trial Court warrant quashing of proceedings.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Hansraj
- respondent
State of NCT of Delhi
Coram
Manoj Kumar Ohri
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court