Full Text
Translation output
1/ HIGH COURT OF DELHI CRL,M.C. 194/2011 GAURAV SHARMA & ANR. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manmeet Singh and Mr. Kunal, Advocates
Through: Mr. Manmeet Singh and Mr. Kunal, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI &ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
CRL.M.C.195/2011
MANISH SAINI & ANR. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manmeet Singh and Mr. Kunal, Advocates
MANISH SAINI & ANR. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manmeet Singh and Mr. Kunal, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
CORAM: ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
01.05.2013 By this common order, I dispose of the above captioned two petitions fileu by respective petitioners seeking quashing ofF.I.R. No. 55/2007, under
---,------', 2013:DHC:6616 /2--- Section 307/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, New Delhi in Crl. M.C. No.194/2011 preferred by petitioner - Gaurav Sharma and others who are accused in another FIR, while Crl. M.C. No. 195/2011 is preferred by petitioner - Manish Saini and another, who are accused in
F.I.R. No. 5612007, under Section 341/308/34 of IPC, registered at Police
Station Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
Counsels appearing for the parties submit that both the said FIRs were registered arising out of the same incident. Counsels also submit that now both the parties have amicably settled their dispute with the intervention of relatives and friends and in terms of the said settlement, both the parties have decided to seek quashing of the respective FIRs. Counsels also submit that both these parties are belonging to respectable families and the said incident had occurred all of a sudden. Counsels also submit that both the parties have realised their mistake and have undertaken not to repeat such an incident in future. Counsels also submit that Mr. Manish Saini and Mayank
Saini have already surrendered their armed licenses before the district
Magistrate, Haridwar.
Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has strongly opposed quashing of the aforesaid FIRs. Learned Additional Public
----~------. ----:--.--;---;~.---------- ..._.._--- -------,---:-----.-....---------;-....-~
.. -----:----~-------- IJ Prosecutor submits that both the parties have committed serious and grave offence and they are not entitled to seek quashing of the FIRs. Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor also submit that the State has verified that
Manish and Mr.Mayank have already surrendered their licenses and in fact vide order dated 14.2.2011, the learned District Magistrate, Haridwar has already cancelled the said Arms License of each ofthe petitioners. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state submits that in case this court is inclined to quash the aforesaid FIRs, then they should be subjected to suffer heavy costs because both the parties have unnecessarily used the state machinery.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the parties have amicably resolved all their inter se disputes, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the said FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom unnecessarily alive any further against the petitioner.
Since the state machinery has unnecessarily been used, a cost ofRs.20,0001- each is imposed on the petitioners to be deposited by them with the Saket
Bar Association, Saket, New Delhi within a period offour weeks.
----'-< -- '! 1( Subject to payment of cost, the FIR No. 55/2007, under Section
307/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, New Delhi in
Crl. M.C. No.194/2011 preferred by petitioner - Gaurav Sharma and Ors., and F.I.R. No. 56/2007, under Section 341/308/34 of IPC, registered at
Police Station Malviya Nagar, New Delhi preferred by petitioner- Manish
Saini and Anr vide Crl. M.e. No. 195/2011, and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom shall be quashed.
With aforesaid observations, both these petitions stand disposed of.
Dasti.
MAY 01, 2013 pkb ~ KAILASH GAMBHIR, J i ----'
-----~-----',
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
01.05.2013 By this common order, I dispose of the above captioned two petitions fileu by respective petitioners seeking quashing ofF.I.R. No. 55/2007, under
---,------', 2013:DHC:6616 /2--- Section 307/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, New Delhi in Crl. M.C. No.194/2011 preferred by petitioner - Gaurav Sharma and others who are accused in another FIR, while Crl. M.C. No. 195/2011 is preferred by petitioner - Manish Saini and another, who are accused in
F.I.R. No. 5612007, under Section 341/308/34 of IPC, registered at Police
Station Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
Counsels appearing for the parties submit that both the said FIRs were registered arising out of the same incident. Counsels also submit that now both the parties have amicably settled their dispute with the intervention of relatives and friends and in terms of the said settlement, both the parties have decided to seek quashing of the respective FIRs. Counsels also submit that both these parties are belonging to respectable families and the said incident had occurred all of a sudden. Counsels also submit that both the parties have realised their mistake and have undertaken not to repeat such an incident in future. Counsels also submit that Mr. Manish Saini and Mayank
Saini have already surrendered their armed licenses before the district
Magistrate, Haridwar.
Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has strongly opposed quashing of the aforesaid FIRs. Learned Additional Public
----~------. ----:--.--;---;~.---------- ..._.._--- -------,---:-----.-....---------;-....-~
.. -----:----~-------- IJ Prosecutor submits that both the parties have committed serious and grave offence and they are not entitled to seek quashing of the FIRs. Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor also submit that the State has verified that
Manish and Mr.Mayank have already surrendered their licenses and in fact vide order dated 14.2.2011, the learned District Magistrate, Haridwar has already cancelled the said Arms License of each ofthe petitioners. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state submits that in case this court is inclined to quash the aforesaid FIRs, then they should be subjected to suffer heavy costs because both the parties have unnecessarily used the state machinery.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the parties have amicably resolved all their inter se disputes, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the said FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom unnecessarily alive any further against the petitioner.
Since the state machinery has unnecessarily been used, a cost ofRs.20,0001- each is imposed on the petitioners to be deposited by them with the Saket
Bar Association, Saket, New Delhi within a period offour weeks.
----'-< -- '! 1( Subject to payment of cost, the FIR No. 55/2007, under Section
307/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, New Delhi in
Crl. M.C. No.194/2011 preferred by petitioner - Gaurav Sharma and Ors., and F.I.R. No. 56/2007, under Section 341/308/34 of IPC, registered at
Police Station Malviya Nagar, New Delhi preferred by petitioner- Manish
Saini and Anr vide Crl. M.e. No. 195/2011, and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom shall be quashed.
With aforesaid observations, both these petitions stand disposed of.
Dasti.
MAY 01, 2013 pkb ~ KAILASH GAMBHIR, J i ----'
-----~-----',
JUDGMENT