Full Text
Translation output
$-36 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL) 72/2013
Ed MUKESH & ORS.
Through Petitioner Mr. M.S. Yadav, Adv.
W.P.(CRL) 72/2013
Ed MUKESH & ORS.
Through Petitioner Mr. M.S. Yadav, Adv.
VERSUS
STATE & ORS. Respondent
Through Ms. Richa Oberoi for complainant. go Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for State.
Through Ms. Richa Oberoi for complainant. go Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
15.01.2013 By this petition the petitioners seek quashing of FIR
No. 390/12 registered under Section 323/452/506/34 IPC at P.S. Shahbad
Dairy, Delhi and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom.
The parties are present in the court along with their respective counsels. They are identified by their respective counsels.
Counsel for the parties submit that the parties have amicably settled all their disputes. Counsels further submit that the parties are residing in the same locality and with a view to maintain the peace and harmony they have taken a decision to settle all their disputes. The or their petitioners present in the court state that they are repentant f
2013:DHC:8065 alleged acts which led to registration of the present FIR against them.
They further state that they will not indulge into such kind of acts in future.
The respondent nos. 2 and 3 state that they do not want to press any kind of criminal proceedings against the petitioners in view of the settlement arrived at between them.
Heard.
Since the parties have amicably settled all their disputes, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the said
FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioners alive any further. Consequently, the FIR No. 390/12 registered under Section
323/452/506/34 IPC at P.S. Shahbad Dairy, Delhi and the criminal pro eedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, however subject to deposit of cost of Rs.5,000/- by each petitioner with Delhi High Court
Legal Services Committee, within a period of four weeks.
'^V The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
DASTI.
KAASffl, J JANUARY 15,2013 Mg ^4'ytl ('/^ (W'A ^ n ^) I ^ , Al%Cq1t.k.
I
L
H
$-53 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL) 72/2013
MUKESH & ORS.
Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.S. Yadav, Adv.
15.01.2013 By this petition the petitioners seek quashing of FIR
No. 390/12 registered under Section 323/452/506/34 IPC at P.S. Shahbad
Dairy, Delhi and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom.
The parties are present in the court along with their respective counsels. They are identified by their respective counsels.
Counsel for the parties submit that the parties have amicably settled all their disputes. Counsels further submit that the parties are residing in the same locality and with a view to maintain the peace and harmony they have taken a decision to settle all their disputes. The or their petitioners present in the court state that they are repentant f
2013:DHC:8065 alleged acts which led to registration of the present FIR against them.
They further state that they will not indulge into such kind of acts in future.
The respondent nos. 2 and 3 state that they do not want to press any kind of criminal proceedings against the petitioners in view of the settlement arrived at between them.
Heard.
Since the parties have amicably settled all their disputes, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the said
FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioners alive any further. Consequently, the FIR No. 390/12 registered under Section
323/452/506/34 IPC at P.S. Shahbad Dairy, Delhi and the criminal pro eedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, however subject to deposit of cost of Rs.5,000/- by each petitioner with Delhi High Court
Legal Services Committee, within a period of four weeks.
'^V The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
DASTI.
KAASffl, J JANUARY 15,2013 Mg ^4'ytl ('/^ (W'A ^ n ^) I ^ , Al%Cq1t.k.
I
L
H
$-53 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL) 72/2013
MUKESH & ORS.
Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.S. Yadav, Adv.
VERSUS
STATE & ORS.
Respondent
Through: Mr.Rajesh Mahajan ASC for GNCTD with Ms.Richa Oberoi
Ms. Vijay, Adv. for respondents 2 & 3
Respondent
Through: Mr.Rajesh Mahajan ASC for GNCTD with Ms.Richa Oberoi
Ms. Vijay, Adv. for respondents 2 & 3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KA1LASH GAMBHIR
18.02.2013 Crl.M.A.21 53/2013 By this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., State seeks recall/modification of the order dated 15.1.2013 passed by this court.
Counsel for the State submits that the order of quashing was passed by this court in WP (Crl.)73/2013 which was also listed before this court on the same date but wrongly the order of quashing finds place only in the present case. Counsel also submits that in fact in the present case direction was given by this court to file status report and in compliance thereto the State has filed the status report. This submission of counsel for the State has been strongly refuted by counsel for the petitioner. Counsel submits that this court has called for the Status report in another matter i.e. WP (Crl.)73/20 13 and so far the present case is concerned this court gave direction of quashing the
FIR.
I have heard counsel for the parties.
FIR No.383/12 which is the subject matter of the said WP
(Crl.)73/2013 was for a grave offence as in the said case petitioners are
$ faci1ig criminal offence under Section 308 IPC, while in the present petition the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR under Sections 323/452/506/34
IPC and it is most likely that this court had directed the quashing of the FIR in the present case and called for the status report in the other case.
In the light of the aforesaid position, I do not find that any inadvertent mistake had taken place in passing the order of quashing in the present case.
There is no merit in the present application. The same is therefore dismissed.
Since vide order dated 15.1.20 13 this court has already directed quashing of the FIR therefore no further directions are required to be passed in the present case.
KAILAMBH1R, J FEBRUARY 18,2013/ g
18.02.2013 Crl.M.A.21 53/2013 By this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., State seeks recall/modification of the order dated 15.1.2013 passed by this court.
Counsel for the State submits that the order of quashing was passed by this court in WP (Crl.)73/2013 which was also listed before this court on the same date but wrongly the order of quashing finds place only in the present case. Counsel also submits that in fact in the present case direction was given by this court to file status report and in compliance thereto the State has filed the status report. This submission of counsel for the State has been strongly refuted by counsel for the petitioner. Counsel submits that this court has called for the Status report in another matter i.e. WP (Crl.)73/20 13 and so far the present case is concerned this court gave direction of quashing the
FIR.
I have heard counsel for the parties.
FIR No.383/12 which is the subject matter of the said WP
(Crl.)73/2013 was for a grave offence as in the said case petitioners are
$ faci1ig criminal offence under Section 308 IPC, while in the present petition the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR under Sections 323/452/506/34
IPC and it is most likely that this court had directed the quashing of the FIR in the present case and called for the status report in the other case.
In the light of the aforesaid position, I do not find that any inadvertent mistake had taken place in passing the order of quashing in the present case.
There is no merit in the present application. The same is therefore dismissed.
Since vide order dated 15.1.20 13 this court has already directed quashing of the FIR therefore no further directions are required to be passed in the present case.
KAILAMBH1R, J FEBRUARY 18,2013/ g
JUDGMENT