Quashed

Neeraj Goel v. the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC6 Dec 2024CRL.M.C./9560/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi HC quashed an FIR under Section 354 IPC. The petitioner, a landlord, had caused mental distress to the tenant (respondent No.2). Amicable settlement was reached. The court quashed the proceedings but imposed Rs. 20,000 costs on the petitioner to be paid to the complainant within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 206/2019 and consequent proceedings quashed; petitioner directed to pay Rs. 20,000 to respondent No.2 within four weeks as cost.

Neeraj Goel Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~82

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 9560/2024 & CRL. MA 36709/2024 NEERAJ GOEL .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, Advocate with petitioner in person.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Kiran Bariwa, APP for State with SI Prince PS Mandawali, Delhi.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R

¶9

% 06.12.2024

¶10

The matter has been received on transfer.

¶11

The present proceedings are instituted on behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No. 206/2019 registered under Section 354 IPC at Police Station Mandawali, Delhi on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their disputes.

¶12

As per the allegations levelled in the FIR, the petitioner being the landlord of respondent No.2, called her to his godown and acted inappropriately with her, causing her mental distress.

¶13

Learned APP for the State, on instructions, submits that the chargesheet has been filed and that the petitioner is the only accused and respondent No.2 is the complainant/victim in the present case. He further states that even though the parties have entered into a compromise, keeping in view the serious nature of the allegations and the fact that State machinery has already been put in motion, the petitioner may be saddled with some costs.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and

¶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 09:24:26

¶16

respondent No.2 are known to each other, being landlord and tenant respectively and that the present FIR was registered due to misunderstanding. It is further submitted that with the intervention of family members and friends, the parties have amicably settled their disputes vide Settlement Deed dated 29.11.2024, a copy whereof has been placed on record. In terms of the said settlement, complainant/respondent No.2 is now left with no claims or grievances against the petitioner.

¶17

The petitioner, who is present in Court, has been identified by his counsel as well as by the I.O./ SI Prince PS Mandawali, Delhi. Respondent No. 2 is also present in Court and has been identified by the I.O. 6. The petitioner has shown remorse for his conduct and undertakes not to repeat the same in future. Respondent No. 2 also states that she has entered into the aforementioned settlement out of her own free will, volition and without any coercion. She further states that she has no objection if the present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed.

¶18

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

¶19

In view of the above facts and considering that no useful purpose will be served in continuance of the proceedings, it is directed that the aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to the respondent No.2 by the petitioner within four weeks by way of demand draft through the I.O. Proof evidencing receipt of payment shall be filed with the I.O.

¶20

With the above directions, the petition is disposed of alongwith miscellaneous application.

¶21

¶22

In case the proof of payment of cost is not filed within four weeks, the I.O. shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application in this regard.

¶23

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J

¶24

DECEMBER 6, 2024/ rd

¶25

Neeraj Goel v. the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Goel v. the 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devender Kumar Garg & Anr. Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

Rajesh and Other Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

M/S Bigur Finance Ltd. Vs the State Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and Others

Rajesh Kumar Burman Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Ms N Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Shakti Singh & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.