Allowed

Deepak Chaudhary v. the State & Anr.

Delhi HC11 Mar 2024W.P.(CRL)/804/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court allowed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR based on a settlement between the petitioner and the complainant. The court quashed the criminal proceedings as continuation was futile, but imposed costs for counseling POCSO victims.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.0240/2022 and all consequential proceedings quashed subject to parties depositing Rs.10,000/- each with Delhi State Legal Services Authority for counseling POCSO victims.

Deepak Chaudhary Vs the State & Anr. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~74

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 804/2024

¶4

DEEPAK CHAUDHARY ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Shahid Azad, Mr Shailey Shukla and Mr Shoaib, Advocates. Petitioner through VC.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel for the State with SI Kaplian Thang, PS Janakpuri. Mr Matleen Ahmed and Ms Meenu Sharma, Advocates for R-2. Respondent no.2 through VC.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 11.03.2024

¶11

CRL.M.A. 7512/2024

¶12

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

W.P.(CRL) 804/2024

¶14

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No.0240/2022 under Sections 420/468/471/120B IPC registered at Police Station Janakpuri and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement.

¶15

Issue notice. The learned Standing Counsel for the State accepts notice. He submits that since the parties have arrived at a settlement, the State has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed. He further submits that some costs may be imposed on the parties as the considerable time and efforts have been spent in the investigation.

¶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 15/03/2024 at 12:52:20

¶17

The petitioner, as well as, respondent no. 2 are present in the Court and they have been identified by their respective counsel and by the Investigating Officer with SI Kaplian Thang, PS Janakpuri.

¶18

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as an accountant in the office of the respondent no.2. The allegations were made by the respondent no.2 that the petitioner has fabricated rent agreement, bill and invoices and also conspired to cheat the respondent no.2 and other departments. The respondent no.2 made a complaint to the SHO and the FIR came to be registered against the petitioner.

¶19

During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have arrived at a settlement, terms whereof were reduced in writing in the form of Settlement dated January, 2024, which is annexed as Annexure-2 (Colly.) to the present petition.

¶20

It is recorded in the settlement that the parties have agreed to resolve all their disputes amicably after some deliberations and negotiations.

¶21

It is also a term of the settlement that the respondent no.2 shall cooperate with the petitioner for the quashing of the FIR. 9. The respondent no.2, who joined through video conferencing, on a query put by the Court, affirms the fact of settlement and states that he has no objection in case the FIR is quashed.

¶22

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)

¶23

“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

¶24

¶25

criminal proceedings will be an exercise in 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.”

¶26

In view of the settlement between the parties, the ultimate chances of conviction in the case are bleak, therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings will not serve any useful purpose and it will be an exercise in futility.

¶27

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

¶28

In the present case, the State machinery has been put into motion and considerable time and resources of the investigating agency have been spent in the investigation of the matter, it is deemed appropriate to impose cost of Rs.10,000/- each on both the petitioner, as well as, the respondent no.2. Accordingly, the parties are directed to deposit costs of Rs.10,000/- each with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority and the said amount should be utilized towards counselling / psychological support to be provided to POCSO victims requiring such assistance.

¶29

Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR No.0240/2022 under Sections 420/468/471/120B IPC registered at Police Station Janakpuri alongwith all other proceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed subject to the parties depositing the costs as stated above.

¶30

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶31

Order be uploaded on the website of this court.

¶32

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶33

MARCH 11, 2024/MK

¶34

Deepak Chaudhary v. the State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Chaudhary v. the State & 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

Amar Pal Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Suveet Kalra Vs Union of India & Ors.

Kiran Kumar & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi through SHO Ps Saket & Ors.

Dinesh Kumar Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Shakuntla Devi & Anr. Vs State through Commissioner of Delhi Police & Ors.

Shamshid Malik Vs the State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Abu Bakar Vs the State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Jogender Singh & Anr. Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Manoj Vs State NCT of Delhi

Surya Kant Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Immamuddin @ Babu Khatri Vs State NCT of Delhi

Manoj Kumar Vs State

Saurabh Tripathi Vs State

Naeem Ali and Ors. Vs State & Anr.