Full Text
Date of hearing and Order. February 08, 2010 CrI. M.C. No. 4090/2009
Sanjeev Kumar Suman ••• Petitioner
Through; Mr. S.K. Suman and Mr. Pawan Jain, Advocate for petitioner.
Through: Mr. R.N. Vats, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with Sub-
Inspector Dr. P.S. Bhardwaj, Police Station Kotwali.
3.
Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
JUDGMENT
To be referred to Reporter or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
SUNIL GAUR. I. (Oral)
1. Heard. NO. 2. The incident is of 6^^ January 2006. Petitioner as well Crl. M.C. No. 4090/2009 Page 1 2010:DHC:13834 V as Respondent NO. 2were the teachers in Ramjas School No.3, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. They had quarrel over use of the internet facility on the computer in the school and Petitioner is said to have bitten the left ear of Respondent No. 2 and regarding this Incident FIR No.10/2006 under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Chandni Chowk was registered. The trial of this case has not yet begun.
3. Now, Petitioner - accused as well as Respondent - Complainant/first informant of the FIR in question want to maintain cordial relations and seek quashing of the FIR in question as the expenses for plastic surgery of the left ear of Respondent No. 2/Complainant have been borne by the Petitioner. Affidavit to this effect of Respondent No. 2 is on record.
4. Parties are present in person and Respondent No. 2 has been identified by Sub-Inspector Dr. P.S. Bhardwaj, Investigating Officer of this case as the first informant of the FIR in question. Respondent No. 2 states that he has pardoned the Petitioner for the happening of this incident Crl.M.C. No. 4090/2009 ^ and there was some misunderstanding also, which led to happening of this incident and now both the side want to bury their past and to maintain cordial relations.
5. Apex Court in case of Madan Mohan Abbot V. State of Punjab (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 582 observed as under "We need to ennphasis that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law."
6. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, to maintain the cordiality between the Petitioner-accused and Respondent - injured/Complainant, it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings arising out of the Crl.M.C. No. 4090/2009 Page 3 FIR in question are put to an end.
7. Since the subject matter of the FIR in question has been mutually, amicably and finally settled between the parties, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question. Resultantly, FIR No. 10/2006 under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Chandni Chowk, and proceedings emanating therefrom, stands quashed qua the Petitioners.
8. This petition as well as pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. February 08, 2010 pkb Sunil Gaur, J.