High CourtsSingle Bench

Sawan Mahla vs State ( Nct Of Delhi) & Anr

Delhi High Court · Decided on 10 September 2018 · Citation: (2018) 09 DEL CK 0079

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 392
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.2411 Of 2018
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

25 paragraphs · 402 words

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

Crl.M.A.30333/2018 (for early hearing)

For the reasons stated in the application and with the consent of the parties, the date is advanced. The petition is taken up for hearing today.Â

Next date of 04.10.2018 is cancelled.

CRL.M.C. 2411/2018

1.

The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.433/2016 under Section 392/34 IPC, Police Station Sarai Rohilla.Â

2.

The allegations in the FIR are that the complainant was going on his motorcycle when he received a call and stopped to attend the call. Three

persons came in front of his motorcycle and snatched his mobile. During investigation, the IMEI of the mobile phone was put on trace and the phone

was found in the possession of the petitioner.Â

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has falsely implicated that he had purchased the mobile phone without knowing that the same

was stolen.Â

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that without prejudice he has settled with respondent no.2/complainant.Â

5.

Status report has been filed which shows that the co-accused Ranbir @ Jhangi has already expired and the third accused who was the

acquaintance of Ranbir is unknown and untraced.

6.

Respondent No.2 is present in Court in person and is identified by the IO. He has also filed an affidavit. He submits that he has settled with the

petitioner and does not wish to prosecute the complaint any further.Â

7.

In view of the fact that the parties have resolved their disputes and respondent No. 2 does not wish to press his complaint, continuation of criminal

proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored;

securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. It would be expedient to quash the subject FIR and the consequent proceedings

emanating therefrom.

8.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed. FIR No.433/2016 under Section 392/34 IPC, Police Station Sarai Rohilla and the consequent

proceedings emanating there from are quashed, subject to the petitioner depositing costs of Rs.5,000/- with the “Chief Minister’s Distress

Relief Fund (CMDRF), Keralaâ€, within a period of two weeks from today. Receipt of deposit of the costs imposed by this Order be furnished to the

concerned Investigating Officer within a period of three weeks from today.Â

9.

Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.Â