The Delhi High Court has recently quashed an FIR lodged in a case of attack/bite by a dog in a building lift in Preet Vihar.
The high court quashed the FIR lodged in 2020 in view of the fact that the parties have settled the dispute amicably.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta quashed the FIR after considering the submissions and settlement between the parties.
Justice Mendiratta stated in the order dated February 9, 2024, “Considering the facts and circumstances, since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the case pending. Continuation of proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court.”
Furthermore, Petitioner Archana Goswami moved a plea for quashing the FIR lodged under Section 289 IPC registered at police station Preet Vihar and the related proceedings.
As per the case of the petitioner, the FIR got registered on the statement of Nidhi Aggarwal (complainant), who alleged that she resides on the 2nd floor of a premises in A block Preet Vihar, Delhi.
On September 3, 2020, she boarded the lift installed in the premises to proceed towards the ground floor.
However, the lift reached the 3rd floor, and as the door of the lift opened, a dog belonging to the petitioner without a leash entered the lift and attacked / bit the complainant on many places on her right arm.
The owner of the dog, Ashok Goswami, came running down from his house and saved the complainant. Furthermore, she was treated in a hospital in Nirman Vihar.
Advocate Gopesh Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties in terms of a settlement deed dated on February 2, 2024.
Furthermore, it was stated that the incident was unintentional since the lift reached the 3rd floor instead of the ground floor, wherein the complainant was attacked by the dog.
The complainant also stated that in order to maintain harmonious relations with the petitioner, who is also residing on the 3rd floor of the same building, she doesn’t wish to pursue the proceedings and has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
The additional public prosecutor for the State submitted that, in view of amicable settlement between the parties, the State has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
