.jpg)
The DU student allegedly snatched the biryani vendor's cell phone and took more than ₹89,000 out of his account under the guise of purchasing biryani.
Recent charges of cheating against a Ramjas College student who was accused of stealing a phone and taking money out of a man's bank account while selling biryani on a rehri (hand cart) were dismissed by the Delhi High Court.
The accused's age and the absence of any prior criminal history were taken into consideration by Justice Manoj Jain. The Court further stated that the case had been resolved between the parties and that the offenses charged against the student were compoundable.
The petitioner, who is a student at Delhi University's Ramjas College, has no prior involvement of any kind. Given his youth and the settlement reached between the parties, it would be pointless to pursue criminal proceedings further, particularly when the dispute is primarily private in nature and does not involve any public interest. Additionally, the offense is compoundable, the Court stated.
Four males approached the biryani vendor to purchase biryani on the day of the event. The vendor discovered later that his cell phone had been taken.
He discovered that almost ₹89,000 had been taken out of his bank account after he purchased a new SIM card and activated it on a different handset.
The student was the subject of a police complaint from the seller. They later reached an amicable resolution to the issue.
The student went to the court to request that the criminal case against him be dropped in light of the settlement.
Before the court, the student refuted the accusations made against him. According to him, he had no idea how the money ended up in his bank account.
The Court was also told that the seller has refunded the money to their account and that the biryani vendor has decided not to take the case further.
Consequently, the Court went ahead and dismissed the student's case.
"Therefore, it is considered appropriate to quash the instant FIR by exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS."
Advocates Shubham Saurabh, Abhinav Anand, and Vikram Nagpal were present in person with the petitioner.
Sunil Kumar Gautam, an additional public prosecutor, represented the State.
This website is all about sharing knowledge and updating everything about Law.
