Disposed

Maya Devi v. State of (Nct of Delhi) and Anr.

Delhi HC2 Sept 2024CRL.M.C./6877/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a criminal Writ Petition seeking quashing of an FIR. The High Court held that the petitioner, a senior citizen, could raise her defense of no case at the stage of framing of charges before the Trial Court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to place arguments at framing of charge; Trial Court directed to address senior citizen's issue expeditiously.

Maya Devi Vs State of (Nct of Delhi) and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~65

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 6877/2024 CRL.M.A. 26267/2024

¶4

MAYA DEVI .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms. Tanya Agarwal Advocate

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE OF (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for State with Ms. Singdha Sood, Advocate SI Anup Rana, PS Paschim Vihar West

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

¶9

O R D E R % 02.09.2024

¶10

This petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No.381/2018 PS Mianwali Nagar under Sections 354/354(B)/323/34 IPC. Cognizance has been taken on the charge-sheet has been filed and matter is listed for arguments on charge.

¶11

Counsel for petitioner states that petitioner is a 78 year old lady who has been roped in an omnibus complaint filed by complainant.

¶12

A perusal of the FIR, as per petitioner, would bear out that accusation, if any, is against her son Hemant, and rest of the family members have been roped in. None of the complainant’s family members got themselves examined and MLC of complainant, which is appended, shows that there is no injury. Further, a cross FIR has been registered being FIR No. 380/2018 at behest of petitioner’s niece.

¶13

Petitioner’s counsel points out that in view of the fact that complainant

¶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 06/09/2024 at 15:23:09

¶15

suffered simple injury, no charges under Section 323 IPC can be made out, as also charge under Sections 354 IPC cannot be made out since there is no such accusation against petitioner in the FIR.

¶16

Considering these facts and circumstances, the petitioner is at liberty to place these arguments at the stage of framing of charge, before the Trial Court which shall be considered by the Trial Court as per their own merits and in accordance with law.

¶17

Petitioner’s counsel has informed that the matter is coming up before the Trial Court on 10^th October 2024. Trial Court shall consider the issues expeditiously, qua the petitioner.

¶18

Considering that petitioner is a senior citizen, Trial Court is expected to address the issue at the earliest.

¶19

The petition is accordingly disposed of with these observations and directions.

¶20

Pending applications are rendered infructuous.

¶21

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶22

ANISH DAYAL, J

¶23

SEPTEMBER 2, 2024/sm

¶24

Maya Devi v. State of (Nct of Delhi) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maya Devi v. State of (Nct of Delhi) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Chaudhary @ Pavan Chaudhary Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Mohd Madni Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Manish Kumar Vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi. & Anr.

Furkan Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

O P Sangwan Vs State of Delhi

Chander Shekhar and Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.