SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Del) 186

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SURESH KAIT, J.

TARUN RASTOGI - Petitioner
Vs.
STATE & ORS. - Respondents
CRL.M.C. No.404/2013
Decided on : 12.1.2016

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Rajesh Rai, Adv.
Mr. G.M. Farooqui, APP for State with SI Mukesh, PS-Barakhamba Road.

Settlement agreements and lack of appearance by respondents can be grounds for quashing FIR and proceedings.

Headnote:

Quashing - Settlement - The court quashed the FIR and all proceedings against the petitioner based on a settlement reached with the informant and other respondents, despite charges being filed and framing pending.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to quash FIR No. 182/2009 for offenses under Sections 420/408 IPC, citing a settlement with the informant and other respondents.

Finding of the Court:

The court quashed the FIR and all proceedings against the petitioner based on the settlement, despite charges being filed and framing pending.

Issues: Settlement agreement, charges filed but framing pending, lack of appearance by respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the settlement agreement and lack of appearance by the respondents to quash the FIR and proceedings.

Final Decision: The petition to quash the FIR and proceedings was allowed.

JUDGMENT :

SURESH KAIT, J.       

1. Vide the present petition; petitioner seeks directions thereby quashing of FIR No. 182/2009 registered at PS-Barakhamba Road for the offences punishable under Sections 420/408 IPC.

2. The present petition has been filed on the ground that vide memorandum of understanding dated 10.06.2010, matter has been settled with the respondent no.2, i.e., the informant of the FIR. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.06.2010, passed by ld. Special Judge, NDPS (Vacation Judge), the matter has been settled between the petitioner and respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5. Accordingly, petitioner paid an amount of Rs.70,000/- to respondent no. 3 and Rs.85,000/- each to respondent nos. 4 and 5.

3. Pursuant to order dated 04.02.2013, services have been effected upon respondent nos. 2, 3 and 5. Despite, none appeared on their behalf as is recorded in order dated 12.07.2013.

4. As regards the service upon respondent no. 4 pursuant to order dated 04.04.2014 is concerned, service effected through speed post returned back undelivered with the report that respondent no. 4 has left the premises without leaving details of the current address.

5. Ld. APP appearing on behalf of the State submits that after investigation chargesheet has been filed. However, the charges are yet to be framed.

6. Since, none appeared on behalf of the respondents despite the services effected upon them, the Investigating Officer concerned has no knowledge whether the settlement has been taken with the respondents mentioned above.

7. Be that as it may, believing on memorandum of understanding dated 10.06.2010 to be true and relying upon order dated 16.06.2010 passed by the Court mentioned above, I hereby quashed the FIR No.182/2009 registered at PS-Barakhamba Road for the offences punishable under Sections 420/408 IPC with all proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top