Through: Mr. jitendra Sethi and Mr. Amit Yadav, Counsel for the v. The State & 6 Ors

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SUNIL GAUR, J. (Oral)

1. Petitioners are the accused in FIR No. 209/2004 under Section 308/452/323/34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sadar Bazar, Delhi. Crl. M.C. No. 1219/2009 Page II 2009:DHC:10561 Respondent No. 2 to 7 are the injured and witnesses of the aforesaid FIR.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners had stated that both the sides are neighbours and are meat sellers and this· unfortunate incident took place due to misunderstanding, which has now been cleared and stands settled vide Compromise Deed, which is at page 36 of the paper book. It is also stated that the evidence of this case has not yet begun..

3. Mr. R.N. Vats, Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions of Sub-Inspector Sukhdev Singh, Investigating Officer of this case, states that Respondent No. 2 to 7 are the Complainant party of this case and submits that the injury pertaining to the offence under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code was a lathi blow on the head and the said injury was opined to be simple. The factum of the compromise also stands confirmed. The compromise deed also stands confirmed. The compromise deed is at page 26 of the paper book. It has been also confirmed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that the Crl. M.C. No. 1219/2009 Page 12 antecedents of the Petitioners are clean and that both the parties are the neighbourers.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that this incident took place out of misunderstanding, which now stands cleared.

5. Respondent No. 2 to 7 are present in the court and states that now there is no dispute with the Petitioners and they have no objection to the quashing of the FIR in question.

6. Apex Court in case of Madan Mohan Abbot V. State of Punjab (2008} 4 Supreme Court Cases 582 observed as under:uwe need to emphasis 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 Crl. M.C. No. 1219/2009 Page 13 ---·-·-····--·--------------------·--------approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law."

7. Continuance of the proceedings arising out of the Fl R in question would be an exercise in futility, as the subject matter of this FIR has been voluntarily compromised by the parties. Consequently, FIR No. 209/2004 under Section 308/452/323/34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sadar Bazar, Delhi, and proceedings emanating therefrom stands quashed.

8. Dasti.

9. This petition as well as pending application, if any, stands disposed of. May 25, 2009 pkb Crl. M.C. No. 1219/2009 c::: Sunil Gaur, J. Page: 4