Allowed

Shubham v. the State (Govt. of Not of Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi HC9 Jan 2024W.P.(CRL)/75/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 482 CrPC sought quashing of an FIR arising from a parking quarrel and subsequent fight, after the parties settled their disputes by a written memorandum dated 20.12.2023 and the complainant agreed to cooperate. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the court held continuation futile and quashed the FIR with consequential proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 285/2022 under Sections 308/34 IPC PS Alipur and all consequential proceedings quashed.

Shubham Vs the State (Govt. of Not of Delhi) & Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~49

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 75/2024

¶4

SHUBHAM ..... Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Ankit Rana, Advocate with petitioner in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE (GOVT. OF NOT OF DELHI) & ANR.

¶8

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel with SI Mahesh PS Alipur Mr. Oshash Kundo, Advocate for R-2 with R2 in person.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

¶11

% 09.01.2024

¶12

CRL.M.A. 620/2024(exemption)

¶13

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

Application stands disposed of.

¶15

W.P.(CRL) 75/2024

¶16

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No. 285/2022 under Sections 308/34 IPC PS Alipur, District North Delhi and all consequent proceedings emanating therefrom on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement.

¶17

Issue notice. The learned APP for the State accepts notice. The notice is also accepted by Mr. Oshash Kundo on behalf of respondent no. 2. The

¶18

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 13/05/2024 at 15:20:40

¶19

learned APP for the State submits that since the parties have arrived at a settlement, the State has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.

¶20

The petitioner no.1 as well as, respondent no. 2 are present in the Court and they have been identified by their respective counsel and by the IO, who is present in court.

¶21

The FIR was registered after a quarrel took place between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 on 16.05.2022 in respect of parking. After two days, again a fight took place between the parties, in which both the parties suffered injuries.

¶22

During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioners as well as the respondent no. 2 have arrived at a settlement, terms whereof were reduced in writing in the form of Memorandum of Understanding / Settlement dated 20.12.2023, which is annexed as Annexure C to the present petition.

¶23

It is recorded in the settlement that the parties have amicably settled all their disputes and have decided to terminate the ongoing litigation between them.

¶24

It is also a term of the settlement between the parties that the respondent no. 2 shall cooperate with the petitioners for the quashing of the present FIR.

¶25

At this stage, apt would it be to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303: (SCC p. 340, para 58)

¶26

“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in

¶27

¶28

futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.”

¶29

In view of the settlement between the parties, the ultimate chances of conviction in the case are bleak, therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility.

¶30

It is, thus, in the interest of justice that the present FIR and all other proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

¶31

Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR No. 285/2022 under Sections 308/34 IPC PS Alipur, District North Delhi along with all other consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed.

¶32

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶33

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶34

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶35

JANUARY 9, 2024 PT

¶36

Shubham v. the State (Govt. of Not of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham v. the State (Govt. of Not of Delhi) & 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

Rameshwari Devi Vs State, NCT of Delhi

Manish Chadha Vs State(Government of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Rani @ Manju Vs State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi

Mohit Sodhi & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Suveb Ali Vs State of NCT of Delhi through Commissioner of Police & Anr.

Manish Sharma Vs State of NCT (Delhi) and Ors.

Shiv Singh Meena Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Taimoor Khan @ Bhola @ Tamoor Vs Union of India & Anr.

Rohit Malhotra & Ors. Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Rani @ Manju Vs State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi

Savanta Ram Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Mamta Dhawan Vs the State Govt of Delhi and Anr.

Yogender Kumar Vs the State (Govt. of Not of Delhi) & Anr.