Delhi High Court Quashes Criminal Intimidation FIR After Settlement, Asks Accused To Pay ₹25K For Benefit Of Destitute Girls
The Delhi High Court has recently quashed an FIR over allegations of hurt and criminal intimidation after the victim as well as the accused entered into a settlement agreement.Justice Amit Mahajan asked the accused to deposit Rs. 25,000 with Arya Kanya Sadan, Pataudi House, Daryaganj, for the benefit of destitute girls and Rs. 25,000 as compensation to the victim. The FIR was registered for...
The Delhi High Court has recently quashed an FIR over allegations of hurt and criminal intimidation after the victim as well as the accused entered into a settlement agreement.
Justice Amit Mahajan asked the accused to deposit Rs. 25,000 with Arya Kanya Sadan, Pataudi House, Daryaganj, for the benefit of destitute girls and Rs. 25,000 as compensation to the victim.
The FIR was registered for the offences under Section 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The case was registered by the son of a man who owned a shop- Sagar Bombay Drycleaner. It was alleged that the accused started abusing him one day when he had come to the shop to collect his blanket that he had given for dry cleaning about two months ago.
It was further alleged that while the victim was going towards his house, the accused stabbed him on the right side of his chest with a knife. Later, a settlement was entered between them.
The accused apologised for his conduct and undertook to not indulge in any such activities again in the future.
The victim said that he did not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the FIR and had no objection if the same were quashed.
Allowing the plea, the Court said that continuance of the proceedings would only cause harassment and heart burn amongst the parties.
“Keeping in view the nature of dispute and the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court,” the Court said.
“I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. However, keeping in mind the fact that the State machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the petitioner is put to cost,” it added.
Title: JATINDER PAL SINGH v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1594