Quashed

Babloo@Neeraj v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC2 Sept 2024CRL.M.C./6892/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC quashed an FIR under IPC sections 354/354(B)/354(D) and 506 based on a compromise deed signed by parties due to the complainant's remarriage. Court directed accused to pay costs to the complainant before quashing proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 244/2018 and all subsequent proceedings quashed. Acused directed to pay Rs. 30,000 to complainant within two weeks.

Babloo@Neeraj Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~57

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 6892/2024 & CRL.M.A. 26361/2024 BABLOO@NEERAJ .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Sushant Dogra, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with SI Jyoti and SI Jeniffer, P.S.: R.K. Puram.

¶7

Ms. Richa Sharma, Advocate.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R % 02.09.2024

¶9

CRL.M.A. 26360/2024 (exemption)

¶10

Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.

¶11

Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week. The application stands disposed-of.

¶12

CRL.M.C. 6892/2024

¶13

By way of the present petition filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioner and complainant/respondent No. 2, seek quashing of case FIR No. 244/2018 dated 21.07.2018 registered under sections 354/354(B)/354(D) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) at P.S.: R.K. Puram, Delhi (‘subject FIR’). Consequent upon completion of investigation, the offence under section 506 of IPC has also been added in the chargesheet filed in the case.

¶14

CRL.M.C. 6892/2024

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

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 15:25:41

¶17

The petition is premised on Compromise Deed dated 06.07.2024, whereby the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have resolved the matter amicably.

¶18

The petition is also supported by affidavits of the petitioner and of respondent No. 2, alongwith proofs of their I.D.s.

¶19

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

¶20

The court has interacted with the petitioner, as also with respondent No.2, who have confirmed that they have now resolved the matter and a Compromise Deed dated 06.07.2024 has been signed by them closing all issues amicably. Parties now wish to live in peace and harmony going forward.

¶21

Upon being queried, as to the reason why respondent No.2/complainant is settling the matter with the petitioner (accused), respondent No.2 (complainant) has explained the extenuating circumstances that have persuaded her to settle the matter, which include the fact that she has now re-married and has also re-located out of Delhi, by reason of which she does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising from the subject FIR any longer.

¶22

Mr. Utkarsh, learned APP confirms that the State has no objection to the subject FIR being quashed.

¶23

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

CRL.M.C. 6892/2024

Page 2 of 3

subject FIR 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 FIR and all subsequent proceedings would be an exercise in futility and would not be conducive to peace and harmony between the parties.

¶28

However, this court considers it appropriate, that by way of atonement, the petitioner shall pay costs of Rs. 30,000/- to respondent No. 2, within 02 weeks.

¶29

Petitioner is directed to place on record the proof of payment of costs, within 01 week thereafter.

¶30

The Registry is directed to re-list the matter if costs are not paid as directed.

¶31

Accordingly, subject to payment of costs as directed above, case FIR No. 244/2018 dated 21.07.2018 registered under sections 354/354(B)/354(D) of IPC at P.S.: R.K. Puram, Delhi is quashed. All proceedings arising therefrom also stand closed.

¶32