Deepak Kumar v. The State NCT of Delhi

Delhi High Court · 07 Jul 2025 · 2025:DHC:5322
Shalinder Kaur
CRL.M.C. 4368/2025
2025:DHC:5322
criminal petition_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 287 and 337 IPC based on a voluntary amicable settlement between the parties, applying Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and relevant Supreme Court precedents.

Full Text
Translation output
CRL.M.C. 4368/2025
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 07.07.2025
CRL.M.C. 4368/2025
DEEPAK KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Pratap Singh, Mr. Rajbir Singh and Mr. Vipin, Advs. along
WITH
petitioner.
VERSUS
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP for State along
WITH
SI Sachin, PS
Khajuri Khas.
Mr. Veerpal Singh, Adv. for R- 2 along
WITH
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR SHALINDER KAUR, J (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 19000/2025 (Exemption)
JUDGMENT

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

3. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash the FIR No. 0184/2019 dated 09.04.2019 for offences punishable under Sections 287/337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), registered at Police Station Khajuri Khas (“subject FIR”) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 2, who works as an Electrician, had gone to the house of the petitioner for performing some electrical work on 02.12.2018. He submits that while the respondent no. 2 was using a Grinder machine to cut the wall, the machine slipped due presence of an iron wall inside the wall and caused injuries on the chest and hand of the respondent no. 2. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2 was taken to the Hospital for medical treatment by the petitioner and all the medical expenses were borne by the petitioner, however, subsequently, the respondent no. 2 had lodged the present FIR against the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 are neighbours and the respondent no. 2 had suffered simple injuries in the incident. He submits that with the intervention of the family members, relatives, and mutual acquaintances, the parties have arrived at an amicable and voluntary resolution of their disputes and that no further dispute subsists in relation thereto.

6. The present petition is premised on the aforesaid assertion that the dispute inter se the parties stand amicably resolved, of their own volition, uninfluenced by any coercion, compulsion or undue inducement. In furtherance thereof, a Compromise Deed/Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) dated 17.05.2025 has been duly executed between the petitioner and the respondent no. 2. Moreover, the parties have undertaken to withdraw the litigations arising out of the subject FIR pending before any other Judicial fora.

7. Pursuant to the said Compromise, the parties appear before this Court and the Investigating Officer has duly identified the parties. Moreover, the parties have confirmed that they are abiding by all the terms of the said MoU.

8. The respondent no. 2, who is present before this Court, upon being queried, confirms that he has entered into the said settlement, out of his free will, without any coercion, force or undue influence and that is satisfied with the medical treatment that he had received from the petitioner and has no further grudges against the petitioner. He submits that he does not wish to pursue the present case any further against the petitioner. He submits that no other litigation stands pending between the parties and he has no objection if the subject FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

9. In view of the foregoing, the learned counsel for the parties, jointly prayed for quashing of the subject FIR.

10. The learned APP on behalf of the state submits that there is no objection if the subject FIR is quashed.

11. In view of these circumstances, in line with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr.: (2012) 10 SCC 303 as also in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr.: (2014) 6 SCC 466, this Court sees no reason why the subject FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom should not be quashed. In light of the settlement between the contesting parties, continuing with the subject FIR and all subsequent proceedings would be a futile exercise and would not be conducive to peace and harmony between the parties.

12. In conspectus of the above facts and the Compromise Deed/MoU dated 17.05.2025, the subject FIR bearing No. 0184/2019 dated 09.04.2019 for offences punishable under Sections 287/337 of the IPC, registered at Police Station Khajuri Khas and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

13. The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.