Allowed¶13

Kushal and Anr. v. the State NCT of Delhi through SHO P.S. Mahindra Park, Distt-N-W and Anr.

Delhi HC9 Jan 2025CRL.M.C./7591/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC CRL.M.C. 7591/2024 (Vikas Mahajan J, 09.01.2025): Section 482 CrPC quashing of FIR 1426/2021 (SS 323/341/509/34 IPC r/w S.12 POCSO Act 2012, PS Mahendra Park) after inter-party settlement in eve-teasing/injury matter; consent of respondent no. 2 (complainant) and respondent no. 3 (her father); reliance on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 para 58; FIR and consequential proceedings quashed; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 1426/2021 under Sections 323/341/509/34 IPC read with Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 registered at Police Station Mahendra Park, New Delhi, and of all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom; petition disposed of in the above terms. ¶13

Kushal and Anr. Vs the State NCT of Delhi… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 1426/2021 (Sections 323/341/509/34 IPC read with Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, PS Mahendra Park) and all consequential proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. 1973 in view of the settlement reached between the parties.

¶4

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.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

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

¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Vikas Mahajan, J.), order dated 09.01.2025 in CRL.M.C. 7591/2024: Petitioners Kushal and Anr., acting under Section 482 Cr. P.C. 1973, sought quashing of FIR No. 1426/2021 (Sections 323/341/509/34 IPC read with Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Mahendra Park, New Delhi) and consequential proceedings, on the ground that the parties had settled during pendency, the petition being supported by the NOC/Affidavit of respondent no. 2 (Annexure-P2). Respondent no. 2 (complainant, alleging eve-teasing) affirmed the settlement in Court and consented; respondent no. 3 (her father, injured in an altercation with the petitioners) consented via video conferencing. Invoking the Supreme Court's observations in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 (SCC p. 340, para 58) on quashing settled disputes, the learned Judge held that with the chances of conviction bleak, continuation would be an exercise in futility, and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings; the petition was allowed and stood disposed of.

¶1

$~7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 7591/2024

¶4

KUSHAL AND ANR .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Baldev Sharma, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO

¶7

P.S. MAHINDRA PARK, DISTT-N-W AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Pardeep Gehlot, APP for the State with SI Geeta Mr. Sushil Kr. Mishra, Advocate for R-2 with R-2 in person and R-3 (through VC)

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN O R D E R % 09.01.2025

¶10

CRL. M.A. 28990/2024 (exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

The application stands disposed of.

¶13

CRL.M.C. 7591/2024

¶14

The amended memo of parties in terms of order dated 25.09.2024 has been handed over in Court. The same is taken on record.

¶15

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No. 1426/2021 under Sections 323/341/509/34 IPC read with Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 registered at Police Station Mahendra Park, New Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom on the ground that the parties have arrived at a

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 12:57:51

¶18

settlement.

¶19

Issue notice. Mr. Pardeep Gehlot, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State as well as learned counsel appearing private respondents accepts notice.

¶20

The petitioners as well as respondent no. 2 are present in Court while the respondent no. 3 has joined through video conferencing. The parties have been identified by the respective counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer/SI Geeta.

¶21

The present FIR was lodged at the instance of respondent no. 2 alleging eve-teasing against her. It is further alleged that some altercation had taken place between the petitioners and the father of respondent no. 2 i.e. respondent no. 3 herein in which the respondent no. 3 is stated to have suffered injuries.

¶22

During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have arrived at a settlement. The present petition is also supported by the NOC/Affidavit of respondent no. 2, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-P2 to the present petition.

¶23

On a query posed by the Court, respondent no.2 who is present in Court affirms the factum of settlement and states that she has no objection in case the aforesaid FIR is quashed. Likewise, respondent no. 3 who has joined through video conferencing also states that he has no objection in case the FIR is quashed.

¶24

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)

¶25

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 24/01/2025 at 12:57:51

¶26

“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.”

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR No. 1426/2021 under Sections 323/341/509/34 IPC read with Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 registered at Police Station Mahendra Park, New Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed.

¶30

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶31

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶32

JANUARY 9, 2025 ‘ rs’

¶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 12:57:51

Kushal and Anr. v. the State NCT of Delhi through SHO P.S. Mahindra Park, Distt-N-W and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kushal and Anr. v. the State NCT of Delhi through SHO P.S. Mahindra Park, Distt-N-W 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

Ishu Dhawan and Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Vidya Bhushan Dubey Vs State N C T of Delhi & Anr.

Joginder Singh and Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Chirag Varshney & Ors. Vs the Satate Govt. of NCT Fo Delhi and Anr.

Ravinder@ Rahul Vs State NCT of Delhi

Gurpreet Singh Anand @ Vinny Vs State NCT of Delhi