Allowed¶20

Harmandeep Singh & Ors. v. the State of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC1 Sept 2025CRL.M.C./6033/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.M.C. 6033/2025; Harmandeep Singh & Ors. v. The State of Delhi & Anr.; Delhi High Court; Girish Kathpalia, J.; decision 01.09.2025; quashing of FIR; FIR No.147/2024; PS Lajpat Nagar; Sections 288/338/34 IPC; compromise/settlement of disputes; injured daily-wage worker; fall from 4th floor at construction site; contractor petitioner no.4; compensation payments Rs.75,000/- + Rs.75,000/- + Rs.10,000/-; no exploitation of labour; prosecution not pursued; FIR and proceedings quashed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No.147/2024 of PS Lajpat Nagar for offence under Sections 288/338/34 IPC and of proceedings arising out of it. ¶20

Harmandeep Singh & Ors. Vs the State of Delhi & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~48

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 01.09.2025

¶4

CRL.M.C. 6033/2025

¶5

HARMANDEEP SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate with petitioners no.1, 3 & 4

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State with SI Deepak Kumar, PS Govindpuri. Respondent No.2 in person.

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶9

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

¶10

Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.147/2024 of PS Lajpat Nagar for offence under Section 288/338/34 IPC on the ground that complainant de facto /injured (respondent no.2) has compromised the disputes with the petitioners.

¶11

It appears that respondent no.2 was working as a daily wager in construction of a house owned by the present petitioners no.1-3. The respondent no.2 was engaged by the contractor petitioner no.4. While working, respondent no.2 fell from 4^th floor and sustained injuries, so the subject FIR was registered. Since the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent no.2 was completely silent about the compensation aspect, on last date I spoke with the parties present in court and they informed that the petitioners had paid Rs.75,000/- to respondent no.2, who had spent the entire amount on his medical treatment and food as

¶12

CRL.M.C.6033/2025

¶13

Page 1 of 2 pages

¶14

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: 2025.09.01 17:46:21 -07'00'

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 1.09.2025 17:54:10

¶17

he could not work for about 02 months. After some discussion on last date, petitioners offered to pay further amount of Rs.75,000/- to respondent no.2.

¶18

Today, petitioners no.1,3 and 4 have appeared with respondent no.2, all of whom are identified by IO/SI Deepak Kumar. I have spoken with respondent no.2 in Hindi. It is stated by respondent no.2 that towards compensation for the injuries suffered by him, he was initially paid Rs.75,000/- and subsequent to last date, he was paid another amount of Rs.75,000/- by petitioners. The respondent no.2 further discloses that even on last date itself, another amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid to him by the petitioners. Respondent no.2 submits that he does not wish to pursue prosecution of petitioners.

¶19

Having spoken with respondent no.2, I am satisfied that it does not appear to be a case of exploitation of labour, so it would be in the interest of justice not to push the parties through trial.

¶20

Therefore, the petition is allowed and FIR No.147/2024 of PS Lajpat Nagar for offence under Section 288/338/34 IPC as well as proceedings arising out of the same are quashed.

¶21

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

¶22

SEPTEMBER 01, 2025/ ry

¶23

CRL.M.C.6033/2025

¶24

Page 2 of 2 pages

¶25

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 1.09.2025 17:54:10

Harmandeep Singh & Ors. v. the State of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harmandeep Singh & Ors. v. the State of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hitesh Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Deepak Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Ravi Kumar Jha Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Sanjay Jain through the Pairokar Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Vinod Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Veena Trivedi Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.