Prakash & Anr. v. State & Anr.

2. The ground for quashing of the aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings is that the petitioners have arrived at a settlement on 8.4.2011 with the respondent no.2/complainant. Copy of the settlement has been placed on record.

3. Affidavits of both the petitioners have been placed on record. The petitioners are present in Court and are duly identified by their counsel. The respondent no.2 is also present in Court and is duly.......... identified by ~ counsel.. He has also filed a separate affidavit,----'- I I~_', I ! ---:: 2011:DHC:10160 supporting the averments made in the petition.

4. The learned APP states that he has no objection in case the aforesaid FIR and the consequent charge sheet against the petitioners are quashed. However, this may be done subject to imposition of costs as the FIR was registered way back in the year 2007 and considerable time of the State has been wasted in the investigation.

5. I have considered the respective submissions and gone through the record.

6. Since the FIR pertains to the year 2007 and considerable time has been spend by the police in gathering evidence and filing the. charge sheet against the petitioners, I feel that the petitioners must be burdened with some costs on account of expenses which the State has incurred for investigation and the wastage of time of the police.

7. Accordingly, subject to the petitioners depositing costs of Rs.l0,000/- each with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, FIR no.734/2007, u/S 341/506/34 IPC registered by P.S. Kalyan Puri and the trial proceedings pending before the learned MM, Karkardooma Courts are quashed.

8. The petitioners shall produce the original receipt of the deposit of costs before the Trial Court and a photocopy thereof be filed. '\ C_ _ ', ) - I

9. With these directions, the petition stands disposed of.

10. Dasti. V.K. SHALI,J OCTOBER 13, 2011 ~ ~-:..,- 1-- -~