Allowed¶28

Tanya Sood v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC7 Jan 2025CRL.M.C./2/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on settlement; CRL.M.C. 2/2025; Delhi High Court; Vikas Mahajan, J.; Section 528 BNSS 2023; Section 3(1)(r) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989; FIR No.106/2024; P.S. Tughlak Road; MoU dated 03.12.2024; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; exercise in futility; chances of conviction bleak; interest of justice; complainant no objection; non-compoundable offence quashing.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No.106/2024 under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at P.S. Tughlak Road, New Delhi, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. ¶28

Tanya Sood Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No.106/2024 under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at P.S. Tughlak Road, New Delhi, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, should be quashed on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement.

¶12

Court's answer

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

¶26

Ratio / Principle

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

¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Vikas Mahajan, J.) allowed a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 and quashed FIR No.106/2024 under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at P.S. Tughlak Road, New Delhi, together with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. The FIR arose from a complaint by respondent no.2, an employee of the petitioner's husband with whom she had estranged relations, alleging caste-related remarks by the petitioner. During pendency, the parties resolved their disputes by a Memorandum of Understanding dated 03.12.2024; the complainant, present in court, affirmed the settlement and stated she had no objection to quashing, as did the State. Relying on the observations of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court held that in view of the settlement the ultimate chances of conviction were bleak, that continuation of criminal proceedings would not serve any useful purpose and would be an exercise in futility, and that quashing was in the interest of justice.

¶1

$~24

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 2/2025

¶4

TANYA SOOD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vishal Gosain and Ms. Ajunee Singh, Advs. along with petitioner.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP with ACP Virender Jain, P.S. Tughlak Road, New Delhi. Mr. Gagan Jyot Singh, Adv. for R-2 along with R-2.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN O R D E R % 07.01.2025

¶8

CRL.M.A. 23/2025 (exemption)

¶9

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶10

The application stands disposed of.

¶11

CRL.M.C. 2/2025

¶12

The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR No.106/2024 under Section 3(1)(r) of the Schedules Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at P.S. Tughlak Road, New Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement.

¶13

Issue notice. Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, learned APP appearing on

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 24/01/2025 at 12:57:50

¶16

behalf of the State, as well as, Mr. Gagan Jyot Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2, accepts notice. They submit that since the parties have arrived at a settlement, they have no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.

¶17

The parties are present in Court and they have been identified by their respective counsel, as well as, by the I.O/ACP Virender Jain, PS. Tughlak Road, New Delhi.

¶18

The complainant/respondent no.2 is an employee of the husband of the present petitioner with whom she has estranged relationship. On the basis of the complaint of the respondent no.2 alleging that caste related remarks have been made by the petitioner against her, the present FIR came to be registered.

¶19

During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have arrived at a settlement, terms whereof were reduced in writing in the form of Memorandum of Understanding dated 03.12.2024 [MoU], a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure B to the present petition.

¶20

It is recorded in the settlement that parties have mutually and amicably resolved their disputes. It is also mentioned in the settlement that the respondent no.2 shall cooperate with the petitioner in quashing of the aforesaid FIR.

¶21

The respondent no.2, who is present in court, on a query posed by the court, affirms the factum of settlement and states that she 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

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 24/01/2025 at 12:57:50

¶25

“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 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

Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR No.106/2024 under Section 3(1)(r) of the Schedules Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at P.S. Tughlak Road, New Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed.

¶29

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶30

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶31

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶32

JANUARY 7, 2025 aj

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

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 24/01/2025 at 12:57:50

Tanya Sood v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanya Sood v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neeraj Kashyap and Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Smt Nisha Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Surender Bisht Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Mohd. Hasan and Anr. Vs the State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.

Puneet Tanwar & Ors. Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Amit Kharbanda and Others Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Another