Delhi High Court
Nitesh Kumar Singh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 1 March, 2024
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~64
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 01.03.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 1778/2024
NITESH KUMAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Reena Gupta, Ms.Prachi Goel and
Mr.Bhuwan Jayant, Advocates
alongwith petitioner through VC.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP for the State
with WSI Annu, PS Hauz Khas.
Mr.Anwesh Madhukar, Ms.Prachi
Nirwan and Mr.Pranjal Shekhar,
Advocates with respondent No.2
(through VC) and respondent No.3 in
person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% JUDGMENT
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
('Cr.P.C.') has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR
No. 242/2017, under Sections 506/509 IPC registered at P.S.: Hauz Khas and
proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Issue notice. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
respondents No.2 and 3 alongwith respondent No.2 (through VC) and
respondent No.3 in person appear on advance notice and accept notice.
3. In brief, present FIR was registered on the complaint of respondent
No.3 wherein he alleged that threats were received on mobile number of
respondent No.2 as well as respondent No.3. On investigation, the subscriber
was ascertained to be petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who is
having clean past antecedents expresses remorse over the alleged incident
which happened on account of some misunderstanding.
5. Respondent No.3, who is a practicing lawyer and is present in person,
submits that on humanitarian grounds respondents No.2 and 3 have decided
to forgive the petitioner, since the petitioner has claimed that his mother is
suffering from cancer and he is also facing acute problems in personal life.
6. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of amicable settlement
between the parties, the State has no objection in case the FIR in question is
quashed.
7. Petitioner (through VC), respondent No.3 (in-person) and respondent
No. 2 (through VC) have been identified by WSI Annu, PS: Hauz Khas. I
have interacted with the parties and they confirm that the matter has been
amicably settled between them without any threat, pressure or coercion.
Respondent No. 2 also states that nothing remains to be further adjudicated
upon between the parties and she has no objection in case the FIR in question
is quashed.
8. Petitioner in the present case seeks to invoke the powers under Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The same is to be used to secure the
ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of any Court. In which
cases, the power to quash the criminal proceedings or the complaint or FIR
may be used when the offender as well as victim have settled their dispute,
would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no
generalised list or categories can be prescribed. However, the Court is
required to give due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and
consider the impact on the society.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances, since the matter has been
amicably settled between the parties, no useful purpose shall be served by
keeping the case pending. It would be nothing but an abuse of the process of
Court. Consequently, FIR No. 242/2017, under Sections 506/509 IPC
registered at P.S.: Hauz Khas and the proceedings emanating therefrom stand
quashed.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded to learned Trial Court for
information.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
MARCH 01, 2024/v
