W.P.(CRL)/2113/2015 of ANAND SHARMA Vs STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ANR

Court: Delhi High Court
Decision date: 2015-09-22
Case number: 631 of 2013

Parties

W.P.(CRL)/2113/2015 of ANAND SHARMA (PETITIONER)
STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ANR (RESPONDENT)

Cites (0 resolved of 1 detected)

1 case citation detected in this judgment's own text, but none resolved to a judgment page in this build yet.

Statutes cited (1)

indian penal code, 308 (1860)

Full text

solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus

Show all Body

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(CRL) 2113/2015ANAND SHARMA

..... Petitioner

Through:Mr.Akshya Kumar Sharma, Adv.along with petitioner in person

versus

STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ANR

..... Respondent

Through:Ms.Nandita Rao, ASC for the Statewith Ms. Srilina Roy, Adv.SI Sandeep Kumar, PS Karawal NagarMr.Varun Kumar, Adv. for R-2

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMARO R R%22.09.2015

Crl.M.A.13993/2015

Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 2113/2015

The petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR No.631/2013 (PS KarawalNagar) instituted under Section 308 of the IPC.It has been alleged thatwhile respondent No.2 was removing the shuttering, which had been erectedfor the purposes of construction, took help of some of the neighbours and inthe process, stone which was lying on the street was broken because of thefall of the shuttering material.The aforesaid stone was owned by thepetitioner, who entered into verbal scuffle with respondent No.2.

It is alleged that during the heated arguments between the petitioner

and respondent No.2, the petitioner threw broken piece of brick at therespondent which hit him in his head. Respondent No.2 had to be taken tothe hospital.

The occurrence is said to be taken place in fit of temper and thewhole episode arose out of trifle. Realising their mistake, the petitionerand respondent No.2 have settled their differences and have also appendedtheir signatures to settlement deed which has been arrived at betweenthem. The settlement deed reflects that the petitioner and respondent No.2have agreed to live peacefully as good neighbours.

Considering the fact that the dispute is completely inter personal andthe allegation would fall in the category of ‘de minimis non curat lex’, thisCourt is inclined to quash the subject FIR (FIR No.631/2013, PS KarawalNagar).

For the reasons aforestated, the FIR No. 631/2013 (PS KarawalNagar) and the resulted proceedings thereof are set aside and the petition isdisposed of.

Dasti.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J

SEPTEMBER 22, 2015ns