RAVI @ MONU & ANR v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO. 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? NO. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported No. in the Digest? SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide an FIR No. 116/2011 dated 17.04.2011, a case under Sections 323/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 25/27 Arms Act, 1959 was registered at P.S. Baba Haridas Nagar, Delhi against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No. 2. CRL.M.C. 3197/2011 2011:DHC:4947

2. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 has amicably settled all his issues qua the aforesaid FIR against the petitioners on the intervention of family friends and neighbours as both the parties reside in the same locality.

3. Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the court today, properly identified by IO/SI Nar Singh. He submits that he does not want to pursue the case further as he has settled all his disputes with the petitioners.

4. Learned APP for State submits that the parties should be imposed with costs, as the Government Machinery and the precious time of the court has been consumed.

5. I find force in the submissions made by learned APP for State, but in the interest of justice and keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are pursuing their studies, I refrain myself on imposing costs upon them.

6. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, I quash the abovementioned FIR and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.

7. Criminal M.C. 3197 /2011 is allowed in the above terms.

8. Dasti under the signatures of Court Master.

SURESH KAIT,J SEPTEMBER 23, 2011