Delhi HC expresses concern on row between Metro staff, CISF constable

Patra’s counsel submitted that she had three daughters and the matter be quashed as the parties had arrived at a settlement. Similarly, Meena’s counsel submitted that situations like this happen sometimes. Meena was asked by the court what had happened and he submitted that he was on “guard duty” at the station and was asked not to open a “side gate” by his superiors, when the constable asked him to open it several times which eventually ended in an altercation. Justice Singh remarked, “What’s the problem if you have to open the gate four times?”

In the FIR, Meena had accused Patra of physically abusing him, the court noted. The HC said, “This is a case where you are dealing with people…Metro stations are teeming with people…” When the counsel for the parties submitted that such situations sometimes occur and their clients were human, the HC said, “My only concern is how will you serve people if you can’t control your temper.”

However, the HC noted that the parties had arrived at a settlement and submitted their respective affidavits indicating that they did not have a grievance against each other would assist in the quashing of the FIR.

The parties submitted that they had arrived at a settlement without any threat, pressure, coercion or undue influence and had no objection if the FIR was quashed. The parties stated that they “regret their actions and undertook to never repeat them”. Observing that the FIR was lodged in 2015, chargesheet had been filed and considerable time had been spent in the matter, the HC quashed the FIR subject to both parties paying Rs 10,000 each as cost and depositing it with Delhi Legal Services Authority within a week.