Allowed¶24

Laxman Rai & Ors. v. the State( Govt. of NCT of Delhi through SHO Ps. Gokal Puri) & Anr.

Delhi HC3 Mar 2025CRL.M.C./9080/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.M.C. 9080/2024 | High Court of Delhi | Vikas Mahajan J | 03.03.2025 | Quashing of FIR No.0165/2024 (Sections 308/506/34 IPC, PS Gokul Puri) under Article 227 Constitution read with Section 528 BNSS 2023 after settlement between parties to cross-FIRs (companion FIR No.171/2024, Sections 452/323/34 IPC); Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 relied on; petition allowed, FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No.0165/2024 under Sections 308/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Gokul Puri, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. ¶24

Laxman Rai & Ors. Vs the State( Govt. of NCT of Delhi… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of FIR No.0165/2024 under Sections 308/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Gokul Puri, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No.0165/2024 under Sections 308/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Gokul Puri, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom should be quashed, the parties having arrived at a settlement. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

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

¶23

Ratio / Principle

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.

¶22

Key takeaways

The petition is allowed and FIR No.0165/2024 under Sections 308/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Gokul Puri, Delhi, alongwith all other proceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Vikas Mahajan, J.; order dated 03.03.2025 in CRL.M.C. 9080/2024) allowed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR No.0165/2024 under Sections 308/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Gokul Puri, Delhi, one of two cross-FIRs arising from a scuffle between the parties (companion FIR No.171/2024 under Sections 452/323/34 IPC at the instance of the petitioner). During pendency the parties arrived at a settlement with the intervention of respectable persons of society; respondent no.2 affirmed the settlement and raised no objection, and the State (through the learned APP) likewise had no objection. Relying on the observations of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court held that, given the settlement, the ultimate chances of conviction were bleak and continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would be an exercise in futility; accordingly, in the interest of justice, the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom were quashed and the petition was allowed/disposed of.

¶1

$~56

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 9080/2024

¶4

LAXMAN RAI & ORS. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Chaman Sharma, Adv. with petitioners in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE( GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO PS. GOKAL PURI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State with ASI Sitarama PS Gokul Puri Ms. Lalita, Adv. for respondents with respondents in person.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 03.03.2025

¶11

The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 528 BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR No.0165/2024 under Sections 308/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Gokul Puri, Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement.

¶12

Notice in the matter was issued vide order dated 09.01.2025. The learned APP for the State submits that since the parties have arrived at a settlement, the State has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed. 3. The petitioners, as well as, respondents are present in the Court and they have been identified by their respective counsel, as well as, by the

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 11/03/2025 at 12:00:36

¶15

Investigating Officer ASI Sitarama PS Gokul Puri.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that there was scuffle between the parties which escalated to fight and the same led to the registration of two cross-FIRs including the present one. Another FIR No.171/2024 was registered at the instance of the petitioner under Section 452/323/34 IPC registered at PS Gokul Puri.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the injury suffered by the respondent no.2, as well as, another injured person has been opined to be a simple one, which position is not disputed by the learned APP, on instructions from the IO, who is present in Court.

¶18

He submits that during the pendency of the proceedings, with the intervention of the respectable persons of the society the parties arrived at a settlement. The affidavit of petitioners, as well as, victims are on record. 7. The respondent no.2, on a query posed by the Court, affirms the factum of settlement and states that he has no objection in case the FIR is quashed.

¶19

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)

¶20

“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.”

¶21

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 11/03/2025 at 12:00:36

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR No.0165/2024 under Sections 308/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Gokul Puri, Delhi alongwith all other proceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed.

¶25

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶26

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

¶27

MARCH 3, 2025 N.S. ASWAL

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 11/03/2025 at 12:00:36

Laxman Rai & Ors. v. the State( Govt. of NCT of Delhi through SHO Ps. Gokal Puri) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Rai & Ors. v. the State( Govt. of NCT of Delhi through SHO Ps. Gokal Puri) & 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

Deepanshu Budhiraja & Anr. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Vishal Alias Poda Alias Vikas Rai Vs the State of Delhi

Pradeep Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Harvinder Singh @ Baljeet Singh @ Balli Vs the State of Delhi

Nitin Verma & Ors. Vs the State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Vinay Sharma Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi