Full Text
•k
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 1607/2011
ABHISHEK GUPTA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Sehgal, Adv.
Through:Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Adv.
O, Vo 18.05.2011 CrL
M.A. No. 5900/2011
ORDER
1. This is an application seeking exemption from filing the certified copies.
2. Subject to the condition that the deficiency is rectified within 10 weeks from today, the application is allowed. CrL M. C. No. 1607/2011
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner for quashing of an FIR NO. 404/2007, under Section 279/337 IPG registered by P.S. Saraswati Vihar, Delhi. The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance to the said FIR an investigation was carried out and the charge sheet was filed which is presently pending in the Court of Mr. Bhupinder Singh, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini 2011:DHC:15463 Courts, Delhi. Charge under Section 279/337 IPC has been framed against the petitioner, however, no evidence has been recorded as yet.
2. In the meantime, the petitioner has struck a compromise with the complainant. A copy of the compromise has been placed on record. In terms of the compromise, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the injured complainant. It has been stated in the petition that the petitioner is a young boy of 24 years and he has settled the dispute with the complainant with regard to the offence under Section 337 IPC being a compoundable offence and a permission is also sought for compounding the offence under Section 279 IPC which is a non-compoundable offence. The complainant is present in person and has stated that he has no objection in case the offence under Section 337 as well as the offence under Section 279 IPC are compounded on account of the fact that the petitioner is a young boy of 24 years. The complainant has also admitted that he has received a sum of Rs.25,000/- including Rs. 10,000/- paid by the petitioner today in Court.
3. 1 have heard the learned counsel and perused the record.
4. Since the petitioner is a young boy and is stated to have settled the matter with the complainant, I feel no useful purpose would be served by denying the permission to compound the offence under Section 279 IPG. Accordingly, the permission is granted^ to compound the offence under Section 279 IPG as well. The compounding of the offences result in his acquittal. The proceedings accordingly pending before the learned Magistrate are deemed to be closed as a result of the acquittal of the petitioner. ^ MAY 18, 2011 KP V.K. SHALI,J