Allowed

Gulshan Kumar and Anr. v. State through SHO Ps Naraina and Anr.

Delhi HC28 Aug 2024CRL.M.C./5945/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross-FIRs under IPC and POCSO arising from one incident were quashed after parties amicably settled their disputes; complainant's affidavit and State had no objection. Quashing subject to costs of Rs.30,000 paid to Friendicoes SECA by petitioners in one petition.

What did the court decide?

Both subject FIRs and proceedings therefrom quashed, subject to Rs.30,000 costs payable within 04 weeks by CRL.M.C. 5945/2024 petitioners.

Gulshan Kumar and Anr. Vs State through SHO Ps… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~9 & 10

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 5945/2024

¶4

GULSHAN KUMAR AND ANR

¶5

.....Petitioners

¶6

Through: Mr. Ajit Nair and Mr. Akashdeep, Advocates. Petitioners in court.

¶7

versus

¶8

STATE THROUGH SHO PS NARAINA AND ANR

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for the State. R2 in court.

¶11

CRL.M.C. 5988/2024 MUKESH KUMAR AND ANR .....Petitioners

¶12

Through: Petitioners in court. versus

¶13

STATE THROUGH SHO PS NARAINA AND ANR

¶14

.....Respondents

¶15

Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for the State. Mr. Ajit Nair and Mr. Akashdeep, Advocates for R-2. R2 in court.

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R % 28.08.2024

¶17

CRL.M.A. 22728/2024 in CRL.M.C. 5945/2024

¶18

CRL.M.A. 22869/2024 in CRL.M.C. 5988/2024

¶19

Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions. Applications stand disposed-of.

¶20

CRL.M.C. 5945/2024 and conn.

¶21

Page 1 of 4

¶22

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 09/09/2024 at 12:13:49

¶23

CRL. M.C.5945/2024

¶24

CRL.M.C. 5988/2024

¶25

By way of the present petitions filed under section under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioners seek quashing of cross-FIRs, stated to be arising from the same incident, the two FIRs bearing FIR No. 0002/2019 dated 04.01.2019 registered under sections 354/354(B)/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and sections 10/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) at P.S.: Naraina, New Delhi (subject FIR in CRL.M.C. No. 5945/2024) and FIR No. 0003/2019 dated 04.01.2019 registered under sections 323/341/506/509/34 IPC at P.S.: Naraina, New Delhi (subject FIR in CRL.M.C. No. 5988/2024).

¶26

The petitions are supported by respondent No.2’s affidavit dated 17.05.2024 filed in C RL.M.C. No. 5945/2024; and respondent No.2’s affidavit dated 30.04.2024 filed in C RL.M.C. No. 5988/2024 , which confirm that the parties have resolved their disputes, differences, misunderstandings and misgivings fully and finally; and also that the parties have agreed to cooperate in seeking the quashing of the subject FIRs.

¶27

The petitions are also supported by affidavits of the concerned petitioners, and of respondent No. 2 in the concerned case, alongwith proofs of their I.D.s.

¶28

The contesting parties in both petitions are present in court. Their credentials have been verified and they have also been identified by their respective counsel.

¶29

CRL.M.C. 5945/2024 and conn.

¶30

Page 2 of 4

¶31

¶32

The court has interacted with the contesting parties in both petitions, who confirm that they have resolved their disputes amicably; and that they now wish to live in peace and harmony going forward.

¶33

Ms. Shubhi Gupta, learned APP confirms that the State has no objection to the subject FIRs being quashed.

¶34

In the circumstances, in line with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2012) 10 SCC 303 as also in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2014) 6 SCC 466, this court sees no reason why the subject FIRs and all proceedings emanating therefrom should not be quashed. This court is of the view that in light of the settlement between the contesting parties, continuing with the subject FIRs and all subsequent proceedings would be an exercise in futility and would not be conducive to peace and harmony between the parties.

¶35

While allowing these petitions however, this court considers it appropriate, that by way of atonement, the petitioners in CRL.M.C. No. 5945/2024 shall together pay costs of Rs. 30,000/- to Friendicoes SECA, No.271 & 273, Defence Colony Flyover Market, Jungpura, New Delhi, within 04 weeks.

¶36

The petitioners in CRL.M.C. No. 5945/2024 are directed to place on record the proof of payment of costs within 02 weeks of payment.

¶37

Subject to the aforesaid condition, FIR No. 0002/2019 dated 04.01.2019 registered under sections 354/354(B)/506 IPC and sections 10/12 POCSO Act at P.S.: Naraina, New Delhi and FIR No. 0003/2019 dated 04.01.2019 registered under sections

¶38

CRL.M.C. 5945/2024 and conn.

¶39

Page 3 of 4

¶40

¶41

323/341/506/509/34 IPC at P.S.: Naraina, New Delhi are quashed. All proceedings arising therefrom also stand closed.

¶42

The Registry is directed to re-list CRL.M.C. No. 5945/2024 i f costs are not paid as directed above.

¶43

The petitions stand disposed-of.

¶44

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of.

¶45

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

¶46

AUGUST 28, 2024 ds

¶47

CRL.M.C. 5945/2024 and conn.

¶48

Page 4 of 4

¶49

This is a digitally signed order.

¶50

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 09/09/2024 at 12:13:49

Gulshan Kumar and Anr. v. State through SHO Ps Naraina and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulshan Kumar and Anr. v. State through SHO Ps Naraina and 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

Satbir Alias Nanhe Vs State NCT of Delhi

Surender Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Yashmin Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Manish Kumar Vs State NCT Delhi & Anr.

Mohammad Mustafa Vs M/S Bernard Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Saloni Aggarwal Vs State (Govt. of Nct) of Delhi & Ors.