Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 4573/2015 & Crl.
M.A.No.16325/2015 i
RAJRANI SHARMA &ORS | Petitioners
Through Petitioners with their counsel Mr.Robin
Tyagi, Adv. i
CRL.M.C. 4573/2015 & Crl.
M.A.No.16325/2015 i
RAJRANI SHARMA &ORS | Petitioners
Through Petitioners with their counsel Mr.Robin
Tyagi, Adv. i
VERSUS
! SANJAYJAIN ^ Respondent
Through Respondent with his counsel Mr. 'Zafar
Sadique, Mr. S.M.Hashmi j and Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advs.
Through Respondent with his counsel Mr. 'Zafar
Sadique, Mr. S.M.Hashmi j and Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advs.
CRL.M.C. 4574/2015 & Crl.
M.A.No.16327/2015
SANJAYJAIN
Petitioner
Through Petitioner with his counsel Mr. IZafar Sadique, Mr. S.M.Hashmi j and
Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advs. !
M.A.No.16327/2015
SANJAYJAIN
Petitioner
Through Petitioner with his counsel Mr. IZafar Sadique, Mr. S.M.Hashmi j and
Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advs. !
VERSUS
I STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Respondents ^ Through Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP forthe
State along with SI Sangeeta. j R-2 with her counsel Mr.Robin Tyagi, Adv. '
Respondents ^ Through Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP forthe
State along with SI Sangeeta. j R-2 with her counsel Mr.Robin Tyagi, Adv. '
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
06.11.2015 This is ajointpetition filed bythepetitioners and respondent No.
I
2 seeking quashing of the FIR i.e. FIR No.307/2010 registered on
31.08.2010 under Sections 354/504 of the IPC at PS Kingsway Camp on the complaint of respondent No. 2. Section 185 of the Motor Vehicle
2015:DHC:11331 Act has also beenadded to the FIR. Charge-sheet had beenfiled and the j learned MM had summoned the non-applicants vide his order dated
14.12.2011. Complaint Case No.579/2010 had been filed by Sanjay
Jain against the four persons including Rajrani Sharma (respondent NO. 2). On this complaint after pre-summoning evidence had been reccjrded;
I four persons hadbeen summoned including Rajrani Sharma. The memo of parties reflects the presence of others who are Umesh, Ariupam
Maggo and Rupam Maggo. Theprayer in the second petition is that the summoning order dated 14.12.2011 be quashed. |
The parties states that they are neighbours and in fact have been
I living in the same neighbourhood since the last 25 years. The issue essentially was over theparking of the vehicle andtheparties haye now arrived at a settlement and have no grievance left against one another.
I
Respondent No. 2 Rajrani Sharma is present. The other petitioners namely Umesh, Anupam Maggo and Rupam Maggo are also present.
Sanjay Jain is also present. They presence have been identified; by the respective Investigating Officers as also by their respective cdunsels.
O They endorsed the submissions made on their behalfby theirrespective j counsels. i j
Learned APP for the State submits that if at all the present FIR is permitted to be quashed it should be quashed subject to costs as the
I
State machinery has been put in to motion and the State has incurred expenses; record shows that the Court had also examined 6 witnesses at the pre-summoning stage inComplaint Case No.579/2010. |
Noting the above factual matrix, in the interest of justice and keeping in view that the parties have now arrived at a settlement and c
^hey have no grievance left against one another, it would be expedient to allowtheprayersmadeinthepresentpetitions. |
Accordingly, subject to payment of costs of Rs.20,000/- to be
! deposited by the petitioners in each ofthe two petitions i.e. in Crl|M.C
N9.4573/2OI5 and Crl.M.C.No.4574/2015 into the account of Delhi
• i
High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks, FIR No.
I
307/2010 registered under Sections 354/504 ofthe IPC at PS Kingsway
Camp (and all proceedings emanating therefrom) as also Complaint
Case No.579/2010 (and all proceeding emanating therefrom) are quashed.
Petitions disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J NOVEMBER 06,2015 |
A • I
06.11.2015 This is ajointpetition filed bythepetitioners and respondent No.
I
2 seeking quashing of the FIR i.e. FIR No.307/2010 registered on
31.08.2010 under Sections 354/504 of the IPC at PS Kingsway Camp on the complaint of respondent No. 2. Section 185 of the Motor Vehicle
2015:DHC:11331 Act has also beenadded to the FIR. Charge-sheet had beenfiled and the j learned MM had summoned the non-applicants vide his order dated
14.12.2011. Complaint Case No.579/2010 had been filed by Sanjay
Jain against the four persons including Rajrani Sharma (respondent NO. 2). On this complaint after pre-summoning evidence had been reccjrded;
I four persons hadbeen summoned including Rajrani Sharma. The memo of parties reflects the presence of others who are Umesh, Ariupam
Maggo and Rupam Maggo. Theprayer in the second petition is that the summoning order dated 14.12.2011 be quashed. |
The parties states that they are neighbours and in fact have been
I living in the same neighbourhood since the last 25 years. The issue essentially was over theparking of the vehicle andtheparties haye now arrived at a settlement and have no grievance left against one another.
I
Respondent No. 2 Rajrani Sharma is present. The other petitioners namely Umesh, Anupam Maggo and Rupam Maggo are also present.
Sanjay Jain is also present. They presence have been identified; by the respective Investigating Officers as also by their respective cdunsels.
O They endorsed the submissions made on their behalfby theirrespective j counsels. i j
Learned APP for the State submits that if at all the present FIR is permitted to be quashed it should be quashed subject to costs as the
I
State machinery has been put in to motion and the State has incurred expenses; record shows that the Court had also examined 6 witnesses at the pre-summoning stage inComplaint Case No.579/2010. |
Noting the above factual matrix, in the interest of justice and keeping in view that the parties have now arrived at a settlement and c
^hey have no grievance left against one another, it would be expedient to allowtheprayersmadeinthepresentpetitions. |
Accordingly, subject to payment of costs of Rs.20,000/- to be
! deposited by the petitioners in each ofthe two petitions i.e. in Crl|M.C
N9.4573/2OI5 and Crl.M.C.No.4574/2015 into the account of Delhi
• i
High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks, FIR No.
I
307/2010 registered under Sections 354/504 ofthe IPC at PS Kingsway
Camp (and all proceedings emanating therefrom) as also Complaint
Case No.579/2010 (and all proceeding emanating therefrom) are quashed.
Petitions disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J NOVEMBER 06,2015 |
A • I
JUDGMENT