Full Text
Translation output
#22
21.12.2010
Present: Ms.Suman Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.R.N.Vats, APP for the respondent No.l/State.
Mr.J.S.Bal<shi, Advocate for respondent No.2.
+Crl.M.A.No.l8778/2010 in Crl.M.C.3941/2010
Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
Crl.M.C.3941/2010
This is a petition seeking quashing of FIR No.32/2007 under Sections
341/323/34 IPC registered at P.S. R.K.Puram on the ground that the FIR is the result of personal dispute regarding possession of a property, which has
/
-^been amicably settled with the aid of Delhi High Court Mediation Centre and a Settlement Agreement, incorporating the terms of settlement, has been reduced into writing and signed by the parties.
Petitioner and respondents No.2 are present in person. They are identified by their counsels.
Both parties confirm that they have entered into an amicable settlement through mediation without any inducement or threat from any corner and now there is no dispute left between the parties.
Respondents No.2 states that since the dispute has been resolyed, in order to preserve the amicable harmonious relationship between the parties.
2010:DHC:10545 they do not want any action against the petitioner in FIR No.32/2007 under
Sections 341/323/34 IPG registered at P.S. R.K.Puram and has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.
Both the parties undertake to abide by the terms and conditions referred to in the Settlement Agreement, copy of which is annexed as
Annexure 'PI' with the petition.
Shri R.N.Vats, learned APP for the State submits that since the FIR is the result of personal disputes between the parties and the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement. State has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.
Since the parties have amicably settled the matter, Ifind no purpose in keeping this matter alive. Accordingly, FIR No.32/2007 under Sections
341/323/34 IPG registered at P.S. R.K.Puram and proceedings emanating from the same are hereby quashed.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
DECEMBER 21, 2010 ks
(AJIT BHARIHOKE)
JUDGE
2010:DHC:10545
21.12.2010
Present: Ms.Suman Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.R.N.Vats, APP for the respondent No.l/State.
Mr.J.S.Bal<shi, Advocate for respondent No.2.
+Crl.M.A.No.l8778/2010 in Crl.M.C.3941/2010
Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
Crl.M.C.3941/2010
This is a petition seeking quashing of FIR No.32/2007 under Sections
341/323/34 IPC registered at P.S. R.K.Puram on the ground that the FIR is the result of personal dispute regarding possession of a property, which has
/
-^been amicably settled with the aid of Delhi High Court Mediation Centre and a Settlement Agreement, incorporating the terms of settlement, has been reduced into writing and signed by the parties.
Petitioner and respondents No.2 are present in person. They are identified by their counsels.
Both parties confirm that they have entered into an amicable settlement through mediation without any inducement or threat from any corner and now there is no dispute left between the parties.
Respondents No.2 states that since the dispute has been resolyed, in order to preserve the amicable harmonious relationship between the parties.
2010:DHC:10545 they do not want any action against the petitioner in FIR No.32/2007 under
Sections 341/323/34 IPG registered at P.S. R.K.Puram and has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.
Both the parties undertake to abide by the terms and conditions referred to in the Settlement Agreement, copy of which is annexed as
Annexure 'PI' with the petition.
Shri R.N.Vats, learned APP for the State submits that since the FIR is the result of personal disputes between the parties and the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement. State has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.
Since the parties have amicably settled the matter, Ifind no purpose in keeping this matter alive. Accordingly, FIR No.32/2007 under Sections
341/323/34 IPG registered at P.S. R.K.Puram and proceedings emanating from the same are hereby quashed.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
DECEMBER 21, 2010 ks
(AJIT BHARIHOKE)
JUDGE
2010:DHC:10545
JUDGMENT