Full Text
Translation output
$-6 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 2533/2011
VIKRAM CHAUDHARY & ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr.Vivek Kadyan, Advocate with Petitioners in person
CRL.M.C. 2533/2011
VIKRAM CHAUDHARY & ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr.Vivek Kadyan, Advocate with Petitioners in person
VERSUS
STATE & ANR Respondents
Through: Mr.Mukesh Gupta, APP for the State with SI Parkash Chander, P.S.
Samaypur Badli
Through: Mr.Mukesh Gupta, APP for the State with SI Parkash Chander, P.S.
Samaypur Badli
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
28.09.2011 Crl.M.A.10906/2011 By this application, the petitioners seek amendment ofthe petition.
For the reasons stated in the application, the amendment is allowed.
Application stands disposed of Crl.M.C.No. 2533/2011
This is a petition for quashing of FIR No. 110/2011 under Sections
326/34 IPG registered at PS Samaypur Badli, Delhi.
Learned APP for the State points out that initially the FIR was registered under Section 324/34 IPG, however, on the opinion of the Doctor that the injuries were 'grievous' in nature, it has been converted under
Section 326/34 IPG. However, no specific opinion has been given in the
MLG' as to why the injury has been opined to be 'grievous' in nature as
2011:DHC:10189 there is apparently no fracture nor any privation of the part of Respondent
No.2..
The complainant/Respondent No. 2 is present in person who is identified by the 10. The complainant states that the disputes between the
Petitioners and him have been amicably resolved due to intervention of their family members and respectable members of the society. In view of the fact that disputes between the parties have been resolved, the complainant does not want to pursue the present FIR and proceedings pursuant thereto.
Since the parties have amicably resolved their difference and the pendency of the present proceedings will bring further acrimony and disharmony between the two, it would be in the interest of justice if the present FIR is quashed.
Accordingly, FIR No. 110/2011 under Sections 326/34 IPG registered at PS Samaypur Badli, Delhi and the proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed.
Parties have signed this order sheet in acknowledgment of their statements made before this Court.
Petition stands disposed of. Order dasti.
SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 MUKTA GUPTA, J.
2011:DHC:10189
28.09.2011 Crl.M.A.10906/2011 By this application, the petitioners seek amendment ofthe petition.
For the reasons stated in the application, the amendment is allowed.
Application stands disposed of Crl.M.C.No. 2533/2011
This is a petition for quashing of FIR No. 110/2011 under Sections
326/34 IPG registered at PS Samaypur Badli, Delhi.
Learned APP for the State points out that initially the FIR was registered under Section 324/34 IPG, however, on the opinion of the Doctor that the injuries were 'grievous' in nature, it has been converted under
Section 326/34 IPG. However, no specific opinion has been given in the
MLG' as to why the injury has been opined to be 'grievous' in nature as
2011:DHC:10189 there is apparently no fracture nor any privation of the part of Respondent
No.2..
The complainant/Respondent No. 2 is present in person who is identified by the 10. The complainant states that the disputes between the
Petitioners and him have been amicably resolved due to intervention of their family members and respectable members of the society. In view of the fact that disputes between the parties have been resolved, the complainant does not want to pursue the present FIR and proceedings pursuant thereto.
Since the parties have amicably resolved their difference and the pendency of the present proceedings will bring further acrimony and disharmony between the two, it would be in the interest of justice if the present FIR is quashed.
Accordingly, FIR No. 110/2011 under Sections 326/34 IPG registered at PS Samaypur Badli, Delhi and the proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed.
Parties have signed this order sheet in acknowledgment of their statements made before this Court.
Petition stands disposed of. Order dasti.
SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 MUKTA GUPTA, J.
2011:DHC:10189
JUDGMENT