Full Text
Translation output
$-20 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 3467/2012
BIR SINGH & ORS. Petitioner
Through Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate
CRL.M.C. 3467/2012
BIR SINGH & ORS. Petitioner
Through Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent
Through Mr. Navin Sharma, Advocate SI Manoj, PS Rohini
Through Mr. Navin Sharma, Advocate SI Manoj, PS Rohini
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
13.03.2013 By way ofthis petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 1073/2006 registered under Section 326/34 IPG at
P.S. Rohini and the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom.
All the petitioners are present along with their advocates. Counsel appearing for the petitioners state that all inter se disputes between the parties have been amicably settled and they want to live peacefully in future.
Counsel also submits that both the parties are close relatives as the petitioner No. 1 is the brother of the petitioner No. 4/complainant of the said
FIR while the petitioner Nos. 2&3 are the nephews of petitioner Nos. 1&4, 2013:DHC:6802
\J being tlie sons of their elder brother Sh. Jagdish Singh. Counsel for both the parties submits that the petitioners are residing in the same property at the same Village Rithala. Counsel also submits that these petitioners are facing trial for about the last seven years. Counsel fiirther submits that earlier the
FIR was registered under Section 324 of the IPC but later, the same was converted into Section 326 of the IPC based on the MLC report. Counsel also submits that as per the prosecution, the complainant was hit by 'Farsa' but no such 'Farsa' was recovered from the petitioner Nos. 1,2&3. Counsel also submits that due to some dispute between the parties, a scuffle had taken place in which respondent No. 4 had received certain injuries.
Based on the aforesaid settlement, counsel submits that this Court may quash the present FIR looking into the close relation of all these petitioners and they are commonresident in the same village. This petition has been strongly opposed by Mr. Navin Sharma, AFP for State. He states that looking to the gravity of the offence the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the said FIR. Counsel also submits that the petitionerNo. 4 has received serious injuries and as per the prosecution, the said injuries were caused by petitioner No.3 by using a 'Farsa'.
Considering the fact that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 who are the accused in the said FIR are closely related with the complainant of the FIR
Sh. Udai Singh (petitioner No. 4 herein) and also that they are not only the resident of the same village but in fact are residing in the same property and also considering the fact that the weapon of offence was not recovered from petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and also the fact that all these petitioners have taken a decision to live together peacefully, this court is of the view that the said
FIR No. 1073/2006 registered under Section 326/34 IPG at P.S. Rohini is, accordingly, quashed subject to a cost of Rs. 25,000/- each on the petitioner
Nos. 1 to 3 to be deposited by them in Delhi High Court Bar Association
Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks from the date ofthis order. It is ordered accordingly.
The petition is accordingly disposed of MARCH 13, 2013 rs
A
\nI^ KAILA^ GAMBHIR, J
13.03.2013 By way ofthis petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 1073/2006 registered under Section 326/34 IPG at
P.S. Rohini and the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom.
All the petitioners are present along with their advocates. Counsel appearing for the petitioners state that all inter se disputes between the parties have been amicably settled and they want to live peacefully in future.
Counsel also submits that both the parties are close relatives as the petitioner No. 1 is the brother of the petitioner No. 4/complainant of the said
FIR while the petitioner Nos. 2&3 are the nephews of petitioner Nos. 1&4, 2013:DHC:6802
\J being tlie sons of their elder brother Sh. Jagdish Singh. Counsel for both the parties submits that the petitioners are residing in the same property at the same Village Rithala. Counsel also submits that these petitioners are facing trial for about the last seven years. Counsel fiirther submits that earlier the
FIR was registered under Section 324 of the IPC but later, the same was converted into Section 326 of the IPC based on the MLC report. Counsel also submits that as per the prosecution, the complainant was hit by 'Farsa' but no such 'Farsa' was recovered from the petitioner Nos. 1,2&3. Counsel also submits that due to some dispute between the parties, a scuffle had taken place in which respondent No. 4 had received certain injuries.
Based on the aforesaid settlement, counsel submits that this Court may quash the present FIR looking into the close relation of all these petitioners and they are commonresident in the same village. This petition has been strongly opposed by Mr. Navin Sharma, AFP for State. He states that looking to the gravity of the offence the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the said FIR. Counsel also submits that the petitionerNo. 4 has received serious injuries and as per the prosecution, the said injuries were caused by petitioner No.3 by using a 'Farsa'.
Considering the fact that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 who are the accused in the said FIR are closely related with the complainant of the FIR
Sh. Udai Singh (petitioner No. 4 herein) and also that they are not only the resident of the same village but in fact are residing in the same property and also considering the fact that the weapon of offence was not recovered from petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and also the fact that all these petitioners have taken a decision to live together peacefully, this court is of the view that the said
FIR No. 1073/2006 registered under Section 326/34 IPG at P.S. Rohini is, accordingly, quashed subject to a cost of Rs. 25,000/- each on the petitioner
Nos. 1 to 3 to be deposited by them in Delhi High Court Bar Association
Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks from the date ofthis order. It is ordered accordingly.
The petition is accordingly disposed of MARCH 13, 2013 rs
A
\nI^ KAILA^ GAMBHIR, J
JUDGMENT