Quashed

Sanjeev Chadha and Ors. v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC12 Sept 2024CRL.M.C./7240/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, the Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 289 and 125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The court relied on a settlement agreement, confirmed medical payment, and the continuation of the employee's employment, citing Gian Singh to conclude no useful purpose would be served.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 603/2024 registered at Police Station Mundka and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

Sanjeev Chadha and Ors. Vs State Govt of NCT of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~83

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 7240/2024

¶4

SANJEEV CHADHA AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Yamini Sharma (D/2168/2019), Ms. Megha Vadera and Ms. Mamta, Advocates with Petitioners-in-person

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for the State. Mr. Ghanender Singh (D/4686/2016), Advocate for R-2 with Respondent No.2 in person SI Krishan Kumar, PS Mundka

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 12.09.2024

¶11

The Petitioners have approached this Court for quashing FIR No. 603/2024 dated 04.09.2024 registered at Police Station Mundka for offences under Section 289 & 125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

¶12

It is stated that Respondent No.2/Nekpal Singh is working as a machine operator in the factory belonging to the Petitioners since 1998. It is stated that on 03.09.2024 at about 5:20 PM while working on the lathe machine, Respondent No.2 suffered an accident because of which his right hand ring finger got caught in the lathe machine and he sustained injuries. It is stated that Respondent No.2 was taken to ESI Hospital, Rohini by his coworker where he got his treatment.

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

CRL.M.C. 7240/2024

¶15

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 09:18:03

¶16

The Petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the present FIR primarily on the ground that the parties have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 06.09.2024.

¶17

Respondent No.2 is present in Court today. He states that his finger has not been amputated and he has undergone a surgery. He states that the entire expense for the treatment has been borne by his employers, i.e., the Petitioners herein and apart from getting the medical expenses, a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been given to him as compensation. He states that he continues to work in the factory.

¶18

The Petitioners are present in Court today. They state that Respondent No.2 is working in the factory and his salaries are not being deducted on the ground that he is absenting himself from the work because of the accident and no deductions will be made because of his absentism from the work due to his medical condition.

¶19

The Petitioners and Respondent No.2 have been identified by their respective Counsels and the Investigating Officer. Respondent No.2 states that he does not have any objection if the present FIR against the Petitioners is quashed.

¶20

In view of the fact that the parties have entered into a settlement and in view of the fact that services of Respondent No.2 are not being terminated and he is not going to lose monetarily because of the fact he is unable to do the work, considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the present proceedings. Resultantly, the FIR No. 603/2024 dated 04.09.2024 registered at Police Station Mundka for offences under Section 289 & 125 of the

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

CRL.M.C. 7240/2024

¶23

¶24

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. The parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement and the undertaking given to the Court.

¶25

With these observations, the petition is disposed of along with pending application(s), if any.

¶26

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

¶27

SEPTEMBER 12, 2024 hsk

¶28

Page 3 of 3

¶29

CRL.M.C. 7240/2024

¶30

Sanjeev Chadha and Ors. v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Chadha and Ors. v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi 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

Rakesh Kumar Vs M/S Nivedan Fin Invest Lease Ltd.

Geeta Gupta Vs M/S Nivedan Fin Invest Lease Ltd.

Vinit and Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Shubham Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Shri Sanjeev Kumar Bhadgal through Its Authorized Representative Shri Rohit Kumar Bhadga Vs Shri Anil Kumar Sharma

Rajeev Kumar Vs State(Gnct) Delhi & Anr.