KARTIK YADAV vs STATE & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~95 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 21st May, 2026 + W.P.(CRL) 3446/2023, CRL.M.A. 31938/2023, CRL.M.A. 31939/2023 & CRL.M.A. 18625/2025 KARTIK YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rizwan, Ms. Sachi Chopra and Ms. Jessica Khera, Advocates versus STATE & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, Addl. Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Mr. Sangeet Sibou, Advocate for State/R-1 Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Advocate for R-3 SI Ritika Dhiwan (P.S. Chanakya Puri) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 248/2023 dated 17.11.2023 registered at Police Station Chanakya Puri for commission of offence under Section 279 IPC along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. It’s a case of rash or negligent driving alone. None received injuries. 2. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 undertakes to file his vakalatnama during course of the day. 3. Mr. Beriwal submits that it was the car of respondent No. 3 which met with an accident, caused by petitioner herein. He submits that car of the Signature Not Verified Signed By:SONIA W.P.(CRL) 3446/2023 1 THAPLIYAL Signing Date:23.05.2026 12:55:40 respondent No. 3, at the relevant time, was being driven by his driver Raj Kumar (complainant/respondent No.2) and, when accident had taken place, their such car was stationary. He submits that such driver has, unfortunately, expired in the interregnum. He submits that, as per instructions received from respondent No. 3, he is no longer desirous in pursuing with the aforesaid FIR and would have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed, albeit, for the above reason. He submits that the offence stands revealed and the assertions made in the petition were, totally, unwarranted. 4. Lear