Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 290/2013
MANOJKUMAR
\ STATE & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through:Mr.Akshay Malik,Adv.
CRL.M.C. 290/2013
MANOJKUMAR
\ STATE & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through:Mr.Akshay Malik,Adv.
VERSUS
..... Respondent
Through:Mr.Naveen Sharma APP for State with S1
Ajay Kumar, P.S. Defence Colony· And
Through:Mr.Naveen Sharma APP for State with S1
Ajay Kumar, P.S. Defence Colony· And
CRL.M.C. 613/2013
LALIT & ORS.
STATE&ANR
LALIT & ORS.
STATE&ANR
CORAM: ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Anil Tomar,Adv.
VERSUS
..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Naveen Sharma APP for State with SI Ajay Kumar, P.S. Defence Colony
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR 2013:DHC:7306
/o
18.03.2013 These two petitions have been preferred by petitioners who are accused in FIR No.83/2012 under Section 308/34 IPC and Section 25/54/59
Arms Act, at PS Defence Colony. Crl. M.C 290/2013 has been preferred by
Manoj Kumar who is co-accused in FIR No.83/2012 and Crl. M.C.
No.513/2013 has been preferred by Latit & Ors. who are the other co-accused persons. These petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR based on the settlement arrived at between the parties.
Both the parties are present in court alongwith their respective
. counsels. 10 is also present in court.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has paid·a sum ofRs.l,20,000/-_ to respondents 2 & 3 so as to compensate them for the injuries sustained by them in the scuffle. Counsel also submits that even the petitioner Manoj Kumar had also sustained injuries in the said scuffle.
Counsel further submits that petitioners are young boys and both the parties are residing in near by localities. Counsel also submits that these petitioners undertake not to indulge in any kind of criminal activity again and keeping in view the age of the petitioners their case may be considered for quashing ofthe FIR. .... ~
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Since the inter se disputes between the parties have been amicably
• settled therefore, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the said FIR alive any further. Consequently, FIR No. 83/2012 under Section 308/34 I~C and Section 25/54/59 Arms Act, at PS Defence
Colony and the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
The petitions stands disposed of accordingly.
1\IARCH 18, 2013 g (JG KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
Through: Mr.Naveen Sharma APP for State with SI Ajay Kumar, P.S. Defence Colony
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR 2013:DHC:7306
/o
18.03.2013 These two petitions have been preferred by petitioners who are accused in FIR No.83/2012 under Section 308/34 IPC and Section 25/54/59
Arms Act, at PS Defence Colony. Crl. M.C 290/2013 has been preferred by
Manoj Kumar who is co-accused in FIR No.83/2012 and Crl. M.C.
No.513/2013 has been preferred by Latit & Ors. who are the other co-accused persons. These petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR based on the settlement arrived at between the parties.
Both the parties are present in court alongwith their respective
. counsels. 10 is also present in court.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has paid·a sum ofRs.l,20,000/-_ to respondents 2 & 3 so as to compensate them for the injuries sustained by them in the scuffle. Counsel also submits that even the petitioner Manoj Kumar had also sustained injuries in the said scuffle.
Counsel further submits that petitioners are young boys and both the parties are residing in near by localities. Counsel also submits that these petitioners undertake not to indulge in any kind of criminal activity again and keeping in view the age of the petitioners their case may be considered for quashing ofthe FIR. .... ~
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Since the inter se disputes between the parties have been amicably
• settled therefore, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the said FIR alive any further. Consequently, FIR No. 83/2012 under Section 308/34 I~C and Section 25/54/59 Arms Act, at PS Defence
Colony and the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
The petitions stands disposed of accordingly.
1\IARCH 18, 2013 g (JG KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
JUDGMENT