Rahul Khatri & Anr v. State & Anr

2. Counsel for the petitioners states that the incident of the subject matter of the present FIR is common to the incident mentioned in the cross FIR No.293/2010 lodged by the petitioner No.1 herein against the respondent No.2, registered with PS Binda Pur, Delhi, which was at the stage of investigation and has now been quashed on a petition CRL.M.C. 3480/2010 Page No.1 of 3 \ 2010:DHC:9638 filed by the respondent No.2/complainant and another, registered as Cri.M.C. No.3479/2010 in view of settlement arrived at between the parties. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners and the respondents No.2/complainant are acquainted with each other and due to some misunderstanding, certain disputes arose between them, which resulted in physical assault and lodging of the aforesaid FIR by the respondent No.2 on 23.9.2010. It is now stated that during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, both the parties arrived at a settlement, as recorded in the Compromise Deed,~ dated 18.10.2010 (Annexure A-4). It is stated that in view of the aforesaid settlement arrived at between the parties, the present FIR may be qusshed.

3. The respondent No.2/complainant, who is present in the Court, confirms the fact that the aforesaid settlement has been arrived at with the petitioners of his own free will and volition and without any undue influence or coercion from any quarters. Counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant states that in view of the aforesaid settlement arrived at between the parties, his client has no objection to quashing of the aforesaid FIR, more so when FIR No.293/2010 lodged by petitioner No.1 against respondent No.2 has been quashed in view of the settlement. CRL.M.C. 3480/2010 Page No.2 of 3 •

4. Learned APP for the State states, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, that the matter is at the stage of investigation, and confirms the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement. He, therefore, does not oppose the prayer made in the present petition.

5. This Court has heard counsels for the parties. In view of the submission made by the respondent No.2/complainant and in view of the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement of their own free will and volition and without any undue influence or coercion from any quarters, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding further with the aforesaid FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom.

6. Accord-ingly, the prayer made in the petition is allowed and FIR No.224/2010 lodged by the respondent No.2/complainant with PS Janak Puri, Delhi and all proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed.

7. The petition is disposed of. File be consigned to the record room.

NOVEMBER 09, 2010 sk CRL.M.C. 3480/2010 HIMA KOHLI,J ~--0······· ).'·:·~-~-· ···.·...-:;:::::;----....... •' ~: ·. !....,· •,~ I Higb Court of Dr-;lhi, Nevv De:lh[1]

VERSUS

_·.. ---~~_e--~-~...:IL__-· ·__ ·Date Bo,:nd Case fvr --~~- OulToda:r --·----·~--~-~-·-.· /or successor Cm.at, Petitioner· ?'Petitwn.mder Sectior• 4~/4?:S(\ P C_--¥= '\)'o>¥""0' ~ £fu._~~'2.-0..\0 ·· '..··. _i}~_$_-~~-~~_;\2>~~:- _,~__':::____ --:--_-·_._:-.;__ -...~::~~~/\,,, ·.· )?oh~eSt;t;c,~~~~~'. ~,-=-c-F!KNo~~\<> ---------"~-~- ··. -, - - - --------------------'--~-------:-. Sir. ·' ·I~crm1i'JI[1]::tiir'" nf1llis C'OJ,;t'c: 1e1Jer "[\i,, -·-·:Oc:ri.ec l.u..,...._;Wll1Jl[1].illl.il..D.l.!.._i;JJlu.1~.!.LL.s..JLUe:i::~_=========~b-a[1]:e[1]:!:===--.-;-----.. ··· I I a1n clirec.t:~d to fcrward herewith for in:G1ecli.atG. compliance/necessai)' action a COJJY.· of-. '.• ·:\judge1~1ei-rt:/order clt. __c:\~\ ~--·-::-· passed in the ~bove case by H6n'blt:Y.(&: · Jus:tice _· )-\~~ ~~\\ · o::: tl[1].is Court. Other neceS8atY direct~o•.1s:art.1J. ton[8.ii1ecl ir[1]. the enclc:':eel ccipy of ord~r. ··..:._~--·~-~-------·-------·-·---~-- ------- ----------~----... ·. _.._.' '.·... ·...,~-. for Regis.tiar ~ · ·;. --~--..