NyayAI Legal Knowledge Graph — Public Judgment & Act Pages (validation build, unlisted)

CRL.M.C./921/2018 of ANAND KUMAR Vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Court
Delhi High Court
Decision date
2018-04-10
Bench
HARSH VIHAR, MANDOLI”, MANGAL PANDEY MARG, NEW DELHI, NEWDELHI
Case number
921/2018

Parties

Cites (1)

Statutes cited (1)

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

+CRL.M.C. 921/2018

ANAND KUMAR

..... Petitioner

Through:Mr. S.S. Sangwan and Mr. DevenderKumar, Advs.

versus

THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents

Through:Ms. Anita Abraham, Addl. PP for theState with SI Sunder SinghMr. Binod Kr. Agrawal, Adv. for R-2

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

O R R%10.04.2018

Crl. M.A. 3396/2018 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CRL.M.C. 921/2018

1.The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 109 of 2016 underSections 440 of the IPC Police Station Baba Hari Das Nagar, NewDelhi, based on settlement.

2.The subject FIR was registered alleging that the petitioner hasfired from toy-gun from his roof and the pellet hit the complainantwho was playing in field nearby. The parties have settled theirdisputes. Respondent no. 2 is minor and is represented by his father

who is respondent no. 3. Compromise deed dated 31.10.2017 has beenagreed upon and signed by the parties. The parties are alsoneighbours. It is contended that with the intervention of seniormembers of the locality and respectable persons of the vicinity andrelatives, the parties have settled their disputes.

3.Respondent no. 2 and 3 are present in person, represented bycounsel and identified by the Investigating Officer. They submit thatthey have settled the disputes with the intervention of locals andrespectable people of the locality.Respondent No. 2 and 3 submitthat he does not wish to press the criminal complaint against thepetitioner any further.

4.In view of the fact that the disputes between the parties havebeen settled, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercisein futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between theparties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends ofjustice being the ultimate guiding factor. It would also be expedient toquash the subject FIRs and the consequent proceedings emanatingtherefrom.

5.In view of the above, the petitions are allowed. FIR No. 109 of2016 under Sections 440 of the IPC Police Station Baba Hari DasNagar,New Delhi and the consequent proceedings emanatingtherefromare,accordinglyquashed,subjecttothepetitionerdepositing cost of Rs.10,000/- with the “Prisoners Welfare Fund, JailNo. 13, Mandoli”, Mangal Pandey Marg, Harsh Vihar, Village

Mandoli, Delhi within two weeks. The receipt of deposit of the costsimposed by this Order be furnished to the concerned InvestigatingOfficer within period of three weeks from today.

6.Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

APRIL 10, 2018‘rs’

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J