Dismissed

Jai Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC13 Aug 2024CRL.M.C./3880/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing an FIR under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC on the basis of a compromise cannot succeed where the petitioner failed to honour the settlement — a cheque for part of the settled amount (Rs.3,80,000) was dishonoured on presentation due to signature mismatch, and the respondent opposed the quashing. The court held the matter did not stand fully settled and dismissed the petition, granting liberty to renew the quashing petition if the parties settle in future. The respondent's application seeking registration of further offences was disposed of with liberty to approach the appropriate forum regarding the cheque dishonour.

What the court decided

Jai Kumar Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~30

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 3880/2024

¶4

JAI KUMAR .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Pandey, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 13.08.2024

¶12

CRL.M.A. 21376/2024 (Exemption)

¶13

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

The application stands disposed of. CRL.M.A. 21375/2024 (under Section 379 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2003 filed by the applicant/respondent No. 2)

¶15

The present Application under Section 379 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), 2023, has been filed on behalf of the applicant/respondent No. 2, namely, Smt. Rakhi.

¶16

It is submitted in the application that the petitioner has filed the Main Petition bearing CRL.M.C. 3880/2024, for quashing of the FIR No. 88/2021 under Section 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code ( hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC, 1860’), registered at Police Station Ranjeet Nagar, on account of the Settlement dated 26.04.2024. However, as per the terms of the Settlement, the petitioner had agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.7,50,000/-, out

¶17

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 20/08/2024 at 12:51:45

¶18

of which Rs.20,000/- were paid by way of bank transfer and Rs.50,000/- in cash, leaving a balance of Rs.3,80,000/-. The petitioner issued a cheque bearing No. 526770 dated 26.04.2024, drawn on IDBI Bank, for the payment of Rs.3,80,000/- but on presentation, the cheqe was dishonoured due to the signatures being different.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, issued Legal Notice to the brother-in-law of the petitioner, who had isused the cheque on behalf of the petiotner and requested him to clear the cheque, as had been agreed by the parties. Though the petiotner has sought quashing but has failed to abide by the terms of the Settlement and while filing the main Petition for quashing has remained silent about the dishonour of the cheque. It is claimed that even the Judge, Family Court, Delhi, in its Order dated 06.06.2024 had observed that the petitioner is misleading the Court and he despite the service, failed to appear in the Execution Petition and NBWs have been issued against him. The petitioner has appeared in the Execution Petition but has been seeking time to make the payment.

¶20

It is submitted that while consealing the material facts, a stay Order was granted by this Court on 14.06.2024, on the submissions made by the petitioner as the matter has been amicably settled. It is submitted that the stay is liable to be vacated. The prayer is made that the FIR under the various provisions of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.) 2023, be directed to be registered for the offences committed by the petitioner.

¶21

Submissions heard.

¶22

The averments made in the present Petition, is that the cheque that was given for the part amount of Settlement as agreed between the parties, has got dishonoured. The respondent herein is at liberty to approach the

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 20/08/2024 at 12:51:45

¶25

appropriate forum to seek the redressal in regard to the dishonour of the cheque or other provisions of B.N.S.S, 2023.

¶26

9. The Application is accordingly disposed of. CRL.M.C. 3880/2024 (under Section 482 CrPC filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 0088/2021 dated 27.04.2021 under Section 498A/406/34 of IPC, registered at P.S. Ranjeet Nagar)

¶27

The present Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, 1973, has been filed on behalf of the petiotner for quashing of the FIR No. 0088/2021 dated 27.04.2021 for the offence under Section 498A/406/34 of IPC, 1860, registered at PS Ranjeet Nagar.

¶28

Since the petitioner has failed to honour the Settlement in full and has failed to pay the part Settlement amount i.e. Rs.3,80,000/-, which remains to be paid, it cannot be said that the matter stands fully settled especially when the same is being opposed by the respondent.

¶29

The Petition is hereby dismissed with liberty to the petitioner, to seek quashing in case the parties arrived at a Settlement in future. 13. The Petition is disposed of.

¶30

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

¶31

AUGUST 13, 2024/RS

¶32

Jai Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Jai Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baby and Others Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sanjeev Kumar @Bittoo Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Vipin Kumar Saluja Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Banarsi Devi Vs the State (Gnct of Delhi) & Anr.

Dalip Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Vivek Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.