Full Text
Translation output
.(
-( s-l4/15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF' DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. t343/2010
VIMAL JAIN & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr'. Mahavir Shanna, Adv.
VETSUS
STATE &ORS. ..... Respondent
Tlu'ough Mr. Navin Shanna, APP for the State
+ CRL.M.C. 1344/2010
' MADAN LlJ- & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Mahavir Sharma, Adv.
VETSUS
STATE &ORS. ..... Respondent
Tlu'ough Mr. Navin Shanna, APP for the State
-( s-l4/15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF' DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. t343/2010
VIMAL JAIN & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr'. Mahavir Shanna, Adv.
VETSUS
STATE &ORS. ..... Respondent
Tlu'ough Mr. Navin Shanna, APP for the State
+ CRL.M.C. 1344/2010
' MADAN LlJ- & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Mahavir Sharma, Adv.
VETSUS
STATE &ORS. ..... Respondent
Tlu'ough Mr. Navin Shanna, APP for the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
" 14.02.2013
By these two petitions filed by the petitioners, they seek quashing of cross-FlRs registered against each other, bearing FIR Nos 106712007 and t'' FIR NO. L05612007 and the crirninal proceedings arising therefrom.
Crl. Misc.(M) No. 134312010 has been filed by the petitioners who ale accused in FIR No. 1067/2007, the said FIR was registered against them under Sections 32313411506134IPC at Police Station Sultanpuli, Delhi
Crl. Misc. (M) No. 134412010 has been filed by the petitioners who
2013:DHC:6859
I
\('
\\o ale accused in FIR No. 1056/2007, the said FIR was registered against thern under Sections 3071201134 IPC with Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi .
Both the parties a.re present in Court along with their respective counsels. Counsel appearing for the parties submits that a sudden cluanel had taken place between both the parties on 27tt' June, 2009, as a result of which, both the parties have received simple injuries and cross FIRs were registered by the Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi under various Sections of the IPC against each other.
Counsel also submits that these parties ale close relatives and they ale canying on their respective business in the same market. Counsel also submits that in order to avoid any kind of problerns or anirnosity in future, these parties have cornpromised the matter and with the said compromise, have arrived at a settlement between them. Now, they do not wish to proceed against each other in the crirninal proceedings.
Counsel appearing for the parties now pray that considering that the said settlement has been arrived at between the parties and the fact that they are canying on their respective business in the surne rnarket and also because they ale related to each other, the aforernentioned FIRs and the criminal proceedings arising thereof be quashed.
J
.l
The cluashing of these FIRs has been strongly opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the State. Mr. Navin Sharma, learned APP for the
State subrnits that in the said scuffle, the assailants narnely Rajeev and
Vinay have used scissor in causing serious injuries to the rival groups on the vital parts of their body. Counsel however submits that in the said quarrel, the tooth of one of the assailants was also broken. while the other victim has received sirnple injuries.
I have heald learned counsel for the parties.
FIR NO. 1056/2007 has been registered against the accused persons under Sections 3071201134 IPC. Ordinarily, in cases, where grave and serious offences are involved, the FIR should not be quashed, but however, considering the facts in the present cases, where the victirns have only received sirnple injuries and that too on the trifling parts of their body, bearing no such austere consequences and also taking into consideration the fact that both the parties are canying on their business in the sarne malket and have close relationship and have taken a decision to settle the rnatter and to end the anirnosity, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be serued in keeping the said FIRs and the proceedings alising therefrom against the petitioners alive any frnther. Consequently, the FIR Nos.
J
\t-
I
106712007 registered under Sections 32313411506134 IPC and FIR NO. 105612007 registered under Sections 307120I/34 IPC both pertaining to
Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi, and the criminal proceedings arising ther:frorn are hereby quashed, subject to theleafs papnent of cost of Rs.
20,000/- by Mt. Rajeev, Rs. 20,0001- by Mr. Vinay and Rs. 10,000/- by the others, to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Lawyers Welfale Fund.
The petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
FEBRUARY L4, 2013 p
{
" 14.02.2013
By these two petitions filed by the petitioners, they seek quashing of cross-FlRs registered against each other, bearing FIR Nos 106712007 and t'' FIR NO. L05612007 and the crirninal proceedings arising therefrom.
Crl. Misc.(M) No. 134312010 has been filed by the petitioners who ale accused in FIR No. 1067/2007, the said FIR was registered against them under Sections 32313411506134IPC at Police Station Sultanpuli, Delhi
Crl. Misc. (M) No. 134412010 has been filed by the petitioners who
2013:DHC:6859
I
\('
\\o ale accused in FIR No. 1056/2007, the said FIR was registered against thern under Sections 3071201134 IPC with Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi .
Both the parties a.re present in Court along with their respective counsels. Counsel appearing for the parties submits that a sudden cluanel had taken place between both the parties on 27tt' June, 2009, as a result of which, both the parties have received simple injuries and cross FIRs were registered by the Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi under various Sections of the IPC against each other.
Counsel also submits that these parties ale close relatives and they ale canying on their respective business in the same market. Counsel also submits that in order to avoid any kind of problerns or anirnosity in future, these parties have cornpromised the matter and with the said compromise, have arrived at a settlement between them. Now, they do not wish to proceed against each other in the crirninal proceedings.
Counsel appearing for the parties now pray that considering that the said settlement has been arrived at between the parties and the fact that they are canying on their respective business in the surne rnarket and also because they ale related to each other, the aforernentioned FIRs and the criminal proceedings arising thereof be quashed.
J
.l
The cluashing of these FIRs has been strongly opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the State. Mr. Navin Sharma, learned APP for the
State subrnits that in the said scuffle, the assailants narnely Rajeev and
Vinay have used scissor in causing serious injuries to the rival groups on the vital parts of their body. Counsel however submits that in the said quarrel, the tooth of one of the assailants was also broken. while the other victim has received sirnple injuries.
I have heald learned counsel for the parties.
FIR NO. 1056/2007 has been registered against the accused persons under Sections 3071201134 IPC. Ordinarily, in cases, where grave and serious offences are involved, the FIR should not be quashed, but however, considering the facts in the present cases, where the victirns have only received sirnple injuries and that too on the trifling parts of their body, bearing no such austere consequences and also taking into consideration the fact that both the parties are canying on their business in the sarne malket and have close relationship and have taken a decision to settle the rnatter and to end the anirnosity, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be serued in keeping the said FIRs and the proceedings alising therefrom against the petitioners alive any frnther. Consequently, the FIR Nos.
J
\t-
I
106712007 registered under Sections 32313411506134 IPC and FIR NO. 105612007 registered under Sections 307120I/34 IPC both pertaining to
Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi, and the criminal proceedings arising ther:frorn are hereby quashed, subject to theleafs papnent of cost of Rs.
20,000/- by Mt. Rajeev, Rs. 20,0001- by Mr. Vinay and Rs. 10,000/- by the others, to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Lawyers Welfale Fund.
The petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
FEBRUARY L4, 2013 p
{
JUDGMENT