Quashed

Mukesh Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC11 Jul 2024CRL.M.C./3739/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Delhi High Court quashed FIR lodged for default appearance in criminal appeal. Court noted settlement paid with delay but ordered costs deposit for legal aid before finalizing quashing.

What did the court decide?

Quashed FIR No.202/2023 and consequent proceedings, subject to petitioner depositing Rs.5,000 with Delhi State Legal Services Authority within two weeks.

Mukesh Kumar Vs State NCT of Delhi & Ors. — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~25

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 3739/2023 and CRL.M.A. 14134/2023 MUKESH KUMAR .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr.Pankaj Kumar, Mr.Priyanshu and Ms.Mehak Sethi, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State Counsel for complainant appearance not given

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

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

¶9

% 11.07.2024

¶10

The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.202/2023 registered under Section 174A IPC at P.S. Burari, Delhi on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present FIR came to be registered as the petitioner, who was an accused in C.C. No.531353/2016 registered under Section 138 NI Act, challenged his conviction vide appeal being CA No.9/2021. He submits that during the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner suffered an accident for which reason he could not appear before the appellate court. It is further submitted that during the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner preferred an application seeking recall of the NBWs, however, instead of considering the said application, the appellate court proceeded to declare the petitioner as an absconder. He submits that before the petitioner could have been declared an absconder, he had already approached the appellate court. Lastly, it is

¶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 02/07/2025 at 08:05:27

¶13

submitted that the parties have reached on a settlement w.r.t. the subject matter of the appeal for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, which amount already stands paid. In this regard, he has also referred to the order dated 23.05.2023 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay remaining amount of Rs.3,40,000/-, which amount has since then been paid.

¶14

Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, submits that under the settlement agreement, the amount was to be paid within one year. However, there has been a delay in payment of the same.

¶15

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is willing to honour the settlement and pay the interest component as well.

¶16

Learned APP for the State has opposed the petition.

¶17

Considering that the present FIR was lodged on the account of the fact that the petitioner had stopped appearing in the appeal proceedings, subject matter of which has already been settled between the parties and further that, the petition is accompanied by the medical records indicating that the petitioner had suffered an accident as well as considering the submissions of the parties recorded hereinabove, it is directed that the aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- by the petitioner to be deposited with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (A/c No.: 18580110053263, Bank: UCO BANK, Branch: Rouse Avenue, IFSC: UCBA0003364) within a period of two weeks from today. The amount so deposited shall be utilized by the Delhi State Legal Services Authority for providing counselling/psychological support to POCSO victims requiring such assistance.

¶18

¶19

Proof evidencing receipt of deposit shall be filed with the I.O. In case the receipt of cost is not filed within the stipulated time, the I.O. shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application.

¶20

With the above directions, the petition is disposed of alongwith the pending application.

¶21

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Member Secretary, Delhi State Legal Services Authority for information.

¶22

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J

¶23

JULY 11, 2024 na

¶24

Mukesh Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

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

Manish Vs State NCT of Delhi

Durga Prasad Vs State of Cnt of Delhi

Nitin Kumar Sharma Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Sanjay Kumar Kamat Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

M/S Pal News Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Planetease Media Services Ltd.

Sumit Kumar Vs the State(Nct of Delhi)