Allowed

Deepak @ Kale and Anr. v. State(Nct of Delhi) and Ors. & Anr.

Delhi HC11 Aug 2025CRL.M.C./1472/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition sought quashing of a 2009 FIR for assault after settlement between petitioners and the complainant and injured, who no longer supported prosecution. Court found continuing trial against their wishes contrary to interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 271/2009 PS Sultanpuri under Section 324/34 IPC and arising proceedings quashed; pending application disposed of.

Deepak @ Kale and Anr. Vs State(Nct of Delhi) and Ors. & Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~71

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 11.08.2025

¶4

- CRL.M.C. 1472/2025 & CRL.M.A. 6564/2025

¶5

DEEPAK @ KALE & ANR. .....Petitioners

¶6

Through: Mr. Harish Pandey and Mr. Anshuman Tiwari, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for State with SI Brahm Prakash and Inspector Sanjay Kumar, PS Sultanpuri. Respondents no.2 & 3 in person.

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶10

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

¶11

Petitioners seek quashing of case FIR No. 271/2009 of PS Sultanpuri, Delhi for offence under Section 324/34 IPC on the ground that complainant de facto (respondent no.2) and the injured ( respondent no.3 ) have settled the disputes with the petitioners.

¶12

Learned APP accepts notice and submits that State has no serious objection because the trial is pending since the year 2009 and the complainant de facto and injured have not supported prosecution in their testimony during trial.

¶13

CRL.M.C. 1472/2025

¶14

Page 1 of 2 pages GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.08.11 17:43:56 -07'00'

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 1.08.2025 17:48:53

¶17

The respondents no.2 & 3, present with their counsel and identified by IO/SI Brahm Prakash accept notice.

¶18

I have spoken with the parties. It is submitted by respondents no.2 & 3 that towards full and final settlement of injuries caused to respondent no.3 by the petitioners, the latter have paid a compensation amount of Rs. 40,000/-. Respondent no.2, on whose complaint the FIR was registered is father of respondent no.3 who had suffered the injuries. Respondents no.2 & 3 submit that they do not wish to pursue prosecution of petitioners. Apparently, that is the reason they did not support prosecution in their testimony before the trial court.

¶19

Considering the above circumstances, I am satisfied that it would be in the interest of justice not to push the parties through trial.

¶20

Therefore, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 271/2009 of PS Sultanpuri, Delhi for offence under Section 324/34 IPC and proceedings arising out of the same are quashed. Pending application stands disposed of.

¶21

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45 GIRISH 569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155 KATHPALIA 70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26 fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.08.11 17:43:37 -07'00'

¶22

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

¶23

AUGUST 11, 2025/ dr

¶24

CRL.M.C. 1472/2025

¶25

Page 2 of 2 pages

¶26

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 1.08.2025 17:48:53

Deepak @ Kale and Anr. v. State(Nct of Delhi) and Ors. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak @ Kale and Anr. v. State(Nct of Delhi) and Ors. & 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

Ishwar Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Promila @ Neena Vs State(Govt of NCT of Delhi)

Dinesh Chandra Yamuna Infra Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Koushal Kumar Taneja Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Harvinder Singh Sikka Vs State

Gauransh Kashyap Vs Ministry of Youth Affairs Sports Government of India & Ors.