Allowed

Smt. Rajwanti Malik & Ors. v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC7 Feb 2024W.P.(CRL)/308/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR arising from a domestic quarrel, citing a subsequent settlement. The non-compoundable offences were quashed as continuation of proceedings was futile, but the Court imposed costs for the time spent in the investigation.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed; FIR No.566/2023 and consequent proceedings are quashed subject to payment of Rs.10,000 as cost within two weeks.

Smt. Rajwanti Malik & Ors. Vs State of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 308/2024 & CRL.M.A. 2816/2024 SMT. RAJWANTI MALIK & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Appearance not given.

¶4

versus

¶5

STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, SC for State with Ms. Priyam Aggarwal, Adv. with SI Pratima, PS. Vasant Kunj South. Mr. Prabhat Yadav, Mr. Akash Deep and Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advs. for R- 2.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

¶7

O R D E R % 07.02.2024

¶8

CRL.M.A. 2815/2024 (exemption)

¶9

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶10

Application stands disposed of.

¶11

W.P.(CRL) 308/2024

¶12

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No.566/2023 under Sections 323/354/34 IPC registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj South and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement.

¶13

Issue notice. The learned Standing Counsel for the State accepts notice. He submits that since the FIR is an outcome of a fight and the parties

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 16/12/2024 at 14:42:07

¶16

have arrived at a settlement, the State has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed. He further submits that some cost may be imposed on the petitioners as the considerable time has been spent in the investigation.

¶17

The petitioner nos. 1 to 3, as well as, respondent no. 2 are present in the Court and they have been identified by their counsel and by the Investigating Officer SI Pratima, PS. Vasant Kunj South. altercation

¶18

The brief facts of the case are that a quarrel took place between the parties with regard to the opening of door early in the morning which led to a heated argument between them and resulted in cross complaints between the parties, subsequently on the basis of the allegations made by the respondent no.2, the aforesaid FIR came to be registered against the present petitioners.

¶19

During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties arrived at a settlement, terms whereof were reduced in writing in the form of Memorandum of Understanding dated 11.01.2024, which is annexed as Annexure P-5 to the present petition.

¶20

In terms of the settlement the parties have settled their disputes amicably and have agreed to cooperate with each other for the quashing of the aforesaid FIR. 9. The respondent no.2, on a query put by the Court, states that she has no objection in case the FIR is quashed.

¶21

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)

¶22

“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the

¶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 16/12/2024 at 14:42:07

¶24

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.”

¶25

In the present case, the State machinery has been put into motion and considerable time and resources of the investigating agency have been spent in the investigation of the matter, it is deemed appropriate to impose cost of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to deposit cost of Rs.10,000/- with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority and the said amount should be utilized towards counselling / psychological support to be provided to POCSO victims requiring such assistance.

¶26

Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR No.566/2023 under Sections 323/354/34 IPC registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj South alongwith all other proceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed subject to payment of cost as aforesaid, within a period of two weeks from today.

¶27

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶28

Order be uploaded on the website of this court.

¶29

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶30

FEBRUARY 7, 2024/dss

¶31

Smt. Rajwanti Malik & Ors. v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rajwanti Malik & Ors. v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi & 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

Ms K Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Sabnam Khan Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Kalimuddin Sirajuddin Khan Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Ranjeet Kumar Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Puran Singh@ Vipin Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Gaurav Soni & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Jitender Kumar Jain Vs the State & Anr.

Praveen Kumar Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Vikash Kumar Surolia & Ors. Vs the State & Anr.

Chetan Diwakar & Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Bhupinder Kumar Arora Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Jitender Bidhuri Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Mohd Nasar Vs Narcotics Control Bureau & Anr.

Rahul Vs State (Nct of Delhi)