Full Text
Translation output
$-24 & 25 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 870/2015
JAI BHAGWAN & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr.O.P.Bharti, Advocate.
CRL.M.C. 870/2015
JAI BHAGWAN & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr.O.P.Bharti, Advocate.
VERSUS
THE STATE &ANR Respondents
Through Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP along SI Amit Kumar.
Mr.Mahipal Singh Advocate for complainant.
Through Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP along SI Amit Kumar.
Mr.Mahipal Singh Advocate for complainant.
CRL.M.C. 871/2015
RAJ SINGH & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr.Mahipal Singh, Advocate.
RAJ SINGH & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr.Mahipal Singh, Advocate.
VERSUS
THE STATE & ANR Respondents
Through Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP along SI Amit Kumar.
Mr.O.P.Bharti, Advocate for complainant.
Through Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP along SI Amit Kumar.
Mr.O.P.Bharti, Advocate for complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
27.08.2015 These arejoint petitions seeking quashing of two FIRs. The first
FIR is FIR No.92/2013 registered under Sections 354/323/341/34 of the
IPG at police station Jaffarpur Kalan qua the incident dated 18.8.2013.
The complainant is TR' (respondent no.2). She is present in person.
Her presence has been identified by the Investigating Officer.
The second FIR which is stated to be counterblast to the first FIR is FIR No.94/2013 at police station Jaffarpur Kalan qua the same
2015:DHC:11301 incident dated 18.8.2013 and the complainant inthis case is 'K' arrayed as respondent no.2. She is also present. Her presence has been identified by the Investigating Officer.
Learned counsel for the parties state that the parties are neighbours; they have settled their disputes. They have no grievance left against one another. A compromise deed dated 11.12.2014 duly signed by all the parties has also been placed on record evidencing this averment. Submission isthat inthe interest ofsociety and ofthe parties living together inthe same vicinity no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing theseproceedings.
Learned APP for the State under instructions from the
Investigation Officer states that in both the FIRs charge sheets have been filed, charges have been framed and the matter is pending for evidence before the Trial Court. Learned APP for the State further states that if at all the present FIRs are permitted to be quashed it should be quashed subject to costs as the State has incurred expenses.
Noting the above factual matrix, the offence for which the parties have been charged, their statements that they have arrived at a settlement and also noting the additional fact that the continuation of these proceedings would really effect as fruitless and it would be in the interest ofjustice that these proceedings should be quashed.
Accordingly, while allowing the prayers made in the petitions and quashing the FIR No.92/2013 registered under Sections
354/323/341/34 of the IPG and FIR No.94/2013 registered under
Section 323/341/34 ofthe IPG both registered at police station Jaffarpur
Kalan and all proceedings emanating therefrom petitioners (in each petition) are burdened with costs quantified at Rs.40,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Service^ Committee.
Petitions disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J AUGUST 27, 2015 ndn
27.08.2015 These arejoint petitions seeking quashing of two FIRs. The first
FIR is FIR No.92/2013 registered under Sections 354/323/341/34 of the
IPG at police station Jaffarpur Kalan qua the incident dated 18.8.2013.
The complainant is TR' (respondent no.2). She is present in person.
Her presence has been identified by the Investigating Officer.
The second FIR which is stated to be counterblast to the first FIR is FIR No.94/2013 at police station Jaffarpur Kalan qua the same
2015:DHC:11301 incident dated 18.8.2013 and the complainant inthis case is 'K' arrayed as respondent no.2. She is also present. Her presence has been identified by the Investigating Officer.
Learned counsel for the parties state that the parties are neighbours; they have settled their disputes. They have no grievance left against one another. A compromise deed dated 11.12.2014 duly signed by all the parties has also been placed on record evidencing this averment. Submission isthat inthe interest ofsociety and ofthe parties living together inthe same vicinity no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing theseproceedings.
Learned APP for the State under instructions from the
Investigation Officer states that in both the FIRs charge sheets have been filed, charges have been framed and the matter is pending for evidence before the Trial Court. Learned APP for the State further states that if at all the present FIRs are permitted to be quashed it should be quashed subject to costs as the State has incurred expenses.
Noting the above factual matrix, the offence for which the parties have been charged, their statements that they have arrived at a settlement and also noting the additional fact that the continuation of these proceedings would really effect as fruitless and it would be in the interest ofjustice that these proceedings should be quashed.
Accordingly, while allowing the prayers made in the petitions and quashing the FIR No.92/2013 registered under Sections
354/323/341/34 of the IPG and FIR No.94/2013 registered under
Section 323/341/34 ofthe IPG both registered at police station Jaffarpur
Kalan and all proceedings emanating therefrom petitioners (in each petition) are burdened with costs quantified at Rs.40,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Service^ Committee.
Petitions disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J AUGUST 27, 2015 ndn
JUDGMENT