Full Text
JUDGMENT
(1) + Crl.M.C. No. 1512/2012 MR.
SUDHESH Petitioner Through: Mr. Akhi Mittal, Advocate versus STATE & ANR. Respondents Through; Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- Statewith InspectorN.S. Minhas Mr. Krishan Kumar, Advocate for respondentNo.2 (2) + Crl.M.C. No. 1538/2012 SUKHPREET SINGH Petitioner Through: Mr. Krishan Kumar, Advocate versus Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Statewith Inspector N.S. Minhas Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.2 (3) + Crl. M.C. No. 1539/2012 MR.
SUDHESH Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate versus Crl. M.C. No. 1512/2012 ^ Crl. M.C. No. 1538/2012 Crl.M.C No.1539/2012 2013:DHC:6754 Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional State with Inspector N.S. Minhas Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER % 17.04.2013 In the above captioned three petitions, quashing of FIR NO. 258/2010 under Section 323/341/448/468/506 (2)/120B/34 of the IPG registeredat police stationMandawli, Delhi [in Crl. M.C. No. 1512/2012] and FIR No. 54/2010 under Sections 420/406/448/468/471/120-B of the IPG registered at police station Mandawali,Delhi [in Grl. M.G. NO. 1538/2012 & Grl. M.G. No. 1539/2012] is soughtby petitioners. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that the above noted two FIRs are cross FIRs, whose subject matter stands settled vide Settlement-Agreement of 7*^ October, 2011 arrived at between the parties through Delhi Mediation Gentre, Karkardooma Gourts, Delhi. LearnedAdditional Public Prosecutorfor respondent-State has placed on record Status Report submitted by Inspector M.N.Minhas, Investigating Officer of this case, who has identified Mr. Sukhpreet Singh as the complainant of FIR No. 258/2010, on the basis of identity proof furnished by him. Mr. Sukhpreet Singh, first-informant/ complainant of FIR NO. 258/2010 affirms factum of settlement recorded in Settlement-Agreement Crl. M.C. No. 1512/2012 Page 2 Crl.M.C. No.1538/2012 Crl. M.C. No. 1539/2012 h of[7] October, 2011 and submits that these proceedings be brought to an end. Counsel for petitioner submits that the first informant of FIR NO. 54/2010 is Mr. V.B.S.Khokhar, on whose behalf his son Mr. Sudesh Khokhar is present in the Court, who submits that his father is aged about eighty four years and is unable to come to the Court. However, he states that he has instructions from his father to give no objection to the quashing ofFIR in question. Inspector M.N.Minhas, Investigating Officer of this case confirms that he has also verified the factum of settlement from complainant of FIR No. 54/2010 and it is so recorded in status report filed by him. In 'Gian Singh Vs. State ofPunjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognized the need ofamicable resolution ofdisputes in cases like the instant one, by observing asunder:-
Considering the fact that the subject matter of the afore-noted two FIRs in question has been settled and to restore cordiality amongst the CrL M.C. No. 1512/2012 Page[3] Crl M.C. No. 1538/2012 ^ CrL M.C. No. 1539/2012 parties, it would be in the interest ofjustice to quash these two FIRs. Accordingly, FIR No. 258/2010 under Sections 323/ 341/ 448/ 468/506 (2)/120B/34 of the IPG and FIR No. 54/2010 under Sections 420/406/448/468/471/120-B of the IPG, both registered at police station Mandawali, Delhi are quashed qua petitioners. The above captionedthree petitions are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE \ CrI.M.C. No.1512/2012 Crl M.C. No.1538/2012 Crl.M.C. No.1539/2012 Page 4 $-57 & 58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1538/2012 SUKHPREET SINGH Petitioner Through: Mr. Krishan Kumar, Advocate versus STATE & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State -I- CRL.M.C. 1539/2012 KULBHUSHAN KASHYAP Petitioner Through: Ms.SunitaArora, Advocate versus STATE & ANR. Respondent Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR ORDER % 07.05.2013 Crl.M.A. No. 5709/2013 (Modification of order dated 17.4.2013) Crl.M.A. No. 5710/2013 (Modification of order dated 17.4.2013) By these applications, petitioners are seeking clarification/modification of order dated 17^' April 2013. Learned counsel # th for the petitioners submits that at the time of passing of order dated 17 April 2013, this Courthad quashed the three FIRs and imposed the costs of ?10,000/- on each of the petitioners but somehow said order does not reflect any such imposition of costs. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submit that the petitioner - Suldipreet Singh has already deposited the costs of ?10,000/- vide receipt No.6980 dated 27"' April 2013 in Crl. M.C. No. 1538/2012 and the petitioner - Kulbhushan Kashyap in Crl. M.C. No. 1539/2012 has also deposited the costs of^10,000/- vide receipt No. 6979 dated 27"' April 2013, therefore, it would be appropriate to modify the said order to record the said fact. Another discrepancy shown in order dated 17"' April 2013 is regarding the title of Crl. M.C. No. 1539/2012 which is recorded as Mr. Sudhesh, however Crl. M.C. No. 1539/2012 relates to petitioner - Kulbhushan Kashyap. After hearing learned counsel for petitioners and perusing ofthe order dated 17"' April 2013, I find merit in the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. Considering the fact that the petitioners in these petitions have already deposited the costs of ?10,000/-with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee and the fact that the order dated 17^^ April 2013 does not reflect giving any such direction to petitioners to deposit the costs of ?10,000/- with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, the order dated 1?"' April 2013 is modified to the extent of adding the said direction of imposition of costs ofRs.10,000/- on each of the petitioners to be deposited by them with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee in all the three petitions. It is also directed that the name of the petitioner in Crl. M.C. NO. 1539/2012 shall be read as Kulbhushan Kashyap in place of Mr. Sudhesh. With aforesaid directions, both these applications are disposed of n KAIL^H GAMBHIR, J MAY 07, 2013 pkb