Disposed

Mohammad Sarfaraz Khan v. the State Nctd & Anr.

Delhi HC22 Jul 2024W.P.(CRL)/929/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition sought quashing of an FIR concerning electrocution death caused by a cooler at petitioner's house, on grounds of amicable settlement and absence of Section 304A ingredients, as no prior complaint of current leakage existed. Court found ingredients unsatisfied, noted settlement, and quashed FIR and consequent proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.140/2019 and consequent proceedings quashed; petition disposed.

Mohammad Sarfaraz Khan Vs the State Nctd & Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~54

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 929/2024

¶4

MOHAMMAD SARFARAZ KHAN .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr.Asif Ali, Mr.Asim Khan and Mr.Mohammad Samad, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE NCTD & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms.Nandita Rao, ASC for State with SI Paras Respondent No.2 in person

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 22.07.2024

¶12

The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.140/2019 registered under Sections 287/304A IPC at P.S. Jaitpur, Delhi and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom on the ground that the parties have settled their disputes.

¶13

The allegation in the FIR pertains to an accident involving the victim getting electrocuted by a cooler installed at the house of the petitioner leading to his death.

¶14

Besides pressing for quashing on settlement, learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the ingredients of Section 304A IPC are not made out as neither in the statements of the complainant nor the witness Surender, it has been stated that there was any prior complaint of leakage of current from the cooler.

¶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 04/07/2025 at 03:59:50

¶16

Learned APP for the State, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is the only accused and respondent No.2 is the complainant/victim in the present case. He further submits that the chargesheet in the present case has been filed.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have amicably settled their disputes vide Memorandum of Understanding/Settlement Deed dated 01.03.2024. In terms of the settlement, petitioner has paid Rs.1,50,000/- to respondent and in terms of the settlement, respondent No.2 is now left with no claim or grievance whatsoever against the petitioner.

¶18

The petitioner, who is present in the Court, has been identified by his counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No.2, who is present in the Court, has also been identified by the Investigating Officer. 7. Respondent No.2 states that he has entered into the aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding/Settlement Deed out of his own free will, volition and without any coercion. He further states that he has no objection if the present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed.

¶19

I have heard learned counsels for the parties and also examined the merits of the case. During the course of hearing, learned ASC for the State has read the chargesheet as well as the statements filed alongwith it. The FIR was registered with the allegations that the complainant had earlier asked the petitioner to remove the cooler, which was in the street, there is no allegation either in the FIR or in the supplementary statements dated 05.07.2020 of the complainant about anyone noticing leakage of current in the cooler . The request to remove the cooler was only on account of physical obstruction. Then the considered opinion of this Court, the ingredients of

¶20

¶21

offence punishable under Section 304A are not fully satisfied. It is worthwhile to note that even in the testimony recorded before the court, the complainant has admitted that there was no prior complaint of leakage of current.

¶22

Learned counsels for the parties submit that no other proceedings are pending between the parties.

¶23

The parties shall remain bound by the statements made in Court today.

¶24

Having examined the case on merits as well as considering the fact that the parties have reached on an amicable settlement, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose will be served in continuance of the present criminal proceedings, it is directed that the aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed

¶25

With the above directions, the petition is disposed of.

¶26

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J

¶27

JULY 22, 2024 na

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 04/07/2025 at 03:59:50

Mohammad Sarfaraz Khan v. the State Nctd & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Sarfaraz Khan v. the State Nctd & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vipin Kumar Saluja Vs State Gnct of Delhi

Sh. Pradeep Koneru Vs Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

Krishnanand Dubey Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Brijlal @Brijlal Bansal & Anr. Vs the State & Ors.

Mrs. Madhu Devi and Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Venus Consulting Solution Pvt. Ltd. Vs State and Another

Kareena and Anr. Vs Commisioner of Police and Ors.

Smt Chandni & Anr. Vs the State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Mansoor Alam @ Mansur Alam Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Sanjay Kapur Vs State and Anr.

Mohd. Mehtab Chaudhary @ Sonu Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Pawan Dixit and Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi through Concerned SHO and Anr.

Alexander Francis Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Riya Arpita Dayal Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.