Quashed

Karan v. Stategovt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC1 Feb 2024CRL.M.C./4802/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order from Delhi High Court quashing an FIR under Sections 354A/509 IPC. The court held that as the parties had amicably settled their disputes and the petitioner showed remorse, quashing the FIR served justice despite non-physical enmity between them.

What did the court decide?

FIR and consequent proceedings quashed subject to deposit of Rs.5,000/- with Delhi State Legal Services Authority within four weeks.

Karan Vs Stategovt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~9

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 4802/2023, CRL.M.A. 18338/2023, CRL.M.A. 18339/2023

¶4

KARAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Kushal Narula, Advocate with petitioner in person.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATEGOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State with SI Ramkesh and SI Naresh Kumar, P.S. Tilak Nagar. Respondent No.2 in person.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

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

¶9

% 01.02.2024

¶10

The present proceedings are instituted under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.523/2019 registered under Sections 354A/509 IPC at P.S. Tilak Nagar, Delhi on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes.

¶11

As per the allegations levelled in the FIR, on 17.10.2019, due to a minor issue, a quarrel took place wherein the petitioner abused and even inappropriately touched respondent No.2.

¶12

Mr. Sabharwal, learned APP for the State, on instructions, submits that petitioner is the only accused person and respondent No.2 is the only complainant/victim in the present case.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 are known to each other and that they have amicably

¶14

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 07:45:30

¶15

settled their disputes vide Compromise Deed dated 24.03.2023. In terms of the said settlement, respondent No.2 is now left with no claim or grievance against the petitioner.

¶16

It is submitted that a cross FIR bearingNo.522/2019 registered under Sections 308 IPC at P.S. Tilak Nagar has also been quashed today vide CRL.M.C. 4863/2023.

¶17

Petitioner, who is present in Court, has been identified by his counsel as well as the I.O./SI Ramkesh and SI Naresh Kumar, P.S. Tilak Nagar. Respondent No.2, who is also present in Court, has been identified by the I.O.

¶18

Petitioner has shown remorse for his conduct and undertakes not to repeat the same in future. Respondent No. 2 also states that she has settled the disputes with the petitioner out of her own free will, volition and without any coercion. She further states that she has no objection if the present FIR and the consequent proceedings are quashed.

¶19

The parties shall remain bound by the statements made in Court today.

¶20

In view of the above facts and considering that no useful purpose will be served in continuance of the proceedings, 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/- to be deposited with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority within a period of four 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.

¶21

Proof evidencing receipt of deposit shall be filed with the I.O. as well

¶22

¶23

as in Court.

¶24

A copy of this order be communicated to the Member Secretary, Delhi State Legal Services Authority for intimation.

¶25

With the above directions, the petition is disposed of alongwith miscellaneous applications.

¶26

The Registry shall list the matter before this Court in case receipt of cost to be paid/deposited is not filed within the stipulated time period.

¶27

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J

¶28

FEBRUARY 1, 2024

¶29

¶30

Karan v. Stategovt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan v. Stategovt. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shambhu Prasad Singh Vs CBI

Vinay Kumar Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr.

Proplarity Infratech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Parvesh Vs the State & Anr.

Daljit Singh Alias Sannu and Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Shri Rahul Tyagi & Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.