Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 1286/2018 & CRL.M.A. 4721/2018
RINKU @ RAJWANT SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Sharma, Adv.
CRL.M.C. 1286/2018 & CRL.M.A. 4721/2018
RINKU @ RAJWANT SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Sharma, Adv.
VERSUS
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS Respondent
Through: . Mr. Kamal Kr. Ghei, APP for State with SI Mukesh Yadav, PS Jagatpuri.
Through: . Mr. Kamal Kr. Ghei, APP for State with SI Mukesh Yadav, PS Jagatpuri.
CRL.M.C. 4869/2017
SUMIT CHOPRA Petitioner . Through: Mr. Yogesh Kr. Rana, Adv.
SUMIT CHOPRA Petitioner . Through: Mr. Yogesh Kr. Rana, Adv.
VERSUS
STATE OF DELHI &ANR Respondent
Through: Mr. Kama! Kr. Ghei, APP for State with SI MukeshYadav, PS Jagatpuri.
Through: Mr. Kama! Kr. Ghei, APP for State with SI MukeshYadav, PS Jagatpuri.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ORDER * 08.05.2018
ORDER * 08.05.2018
CRL.M.C. 1286/2018 has been filed by the petitioner Rinku @
Rajwant Singh and CRL.M.C. 4869/2017 has been filed by Sumit Chopra, arrayed as accused in FIR No.274/2012, registered at PS Jagat Puri, under
Sections 308/341/427/506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 of which both the petitioners seek quashing thereof submitting to the effect that a settlement has been arrived at with the respondent no.2, the complainant of the FIR in question in view of the settlement dated 06.03.2017 arrived at with Rinku, CRL.M.C. 1286/2018 page no. 1of3
2018:DHC:8388 petitioner of CRL.M.C. 1286/2018 placed on records of the said petition as
EX.CW2/A and settlement dated 31.10.2017 arrived at with Shri Sumit
Chopra, the petitioner of CRL.M.C. 4869/2017, the said settlement document being onthe record as Ex.CW2/A inthesaid petition.
It has been submitted by the- Investigating Officer that the petitioner
Shri Sumit Chopra had been put in column no.12 in the charge-sheet in as much as there was no evidence found against him. The Investigating Officer has testified to the effect that as per the averments in the FIR apart from
Rinku and Sumit Chopra i.e. the petitioners of CRL.M.C. 1286/2018 and of
Rajwant Singh and CRL.M.C. 4869/2017 has been filed by Sumit Chopra, arrayed as accused in FIR No.274/2012, registered at PS Jagat Puri, under
Sections 308/341/427/506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 of which both the petitioners seek quashing thereof submitting to the effect that a settlement has been arrived at with the respondent no.2, the complainant of the FIR in question in view of the settlement dated 06.03.2017 arrived at with Rinku, CRL.M.C. 1286/2018 page no. 1of3
2018:DHC:8388 petitioner of CRL.M.C. 1286/2018 placed on records of the said petition as
EX.CW2/A and settlement dated 31.10.2017 arrived at with Shri Sumit
Chopra, the petitioner of CRL.M.C. 4869/2017, the said settlement document being onthe record as Ex.CW2/A inthesaid petition.
It has been submitted by the- Investigating Officer that the petitioner
Shri Sumit Chopra had been put in column no.12 in the charge-sheet in as much as there was no evidence found against him. The Investigating Officer has testified to the effect that as per the averments in the FIR apart from
Rinku and Sumit Chopra i.e. the petitioners of CRL.M.C. 1286/2018 and of
CRL.M.C. 4869/2017 respectively, both under consideration presently,there were two other persons named as accused in the FIR i.e. Shri Tinku who is not traceable and Aditya Rao Gautam @ Atul against whom the FIR has already been quashed vide order dated 22.08.2016 of this Court in
Crl.M.C. 1042/2016.
The respondent no.2 Shri Brij Mohan arrayed on record as the respondent no.2 in both the petitions and the complainant of the FIR in question, in his deposition on oath on examination by the Court has testified to having signed the respective settlement documents, placed on records of both the petitions, voluntarily of his own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter. He further testified to the effect that he does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners of each of the petitions seeking quashing of the FIR No.274/2012, registered at PS Jagat
Puri, under Sections 308/341/427/506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor does he want the petitioners of both the petitions to be punished in relation thereto in view of the settlement arrived at between him and the accused persons i.e.
Crl.M.C. 1042/2016.
The respondent no.2 Shri Brij Mohan arrayed on record as the respondent no.2 in both the petitions and the complainant of the FIR in question, in his deposition on oath on examination by the Court has testified to having signed the respective settlement documents, placed on records of both the petitions, voluntarily of his own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter. He further testified to the effect that he does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners of each of the petitions seeking quashing of the FIR No.274/2012, registered at PS Jagat
Puri, under Sections 308/341/427/506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor does he want the petitioners of both the petitions to be punished in relation thereto in view of the settlement arrived at between him and the accused persons i.e.
CRL.M.C. 1286/2018 page no. 2 of 3 the petitioners of Crl. M.C. 1286/2018 and Crl. M.C. 4869/2017. He also testified to the effect that he is not aware ofthe whereabouts ofany Tinku and that the FIR against Shri Aditya Rao Gautam has already been quashed.
It is informed on behalf of the State that there are no adverse antecedents against the petitioners ofboth the petitions.
The MLC bearing no.1884/12 ofthe injured/complainant as issued by
Dr. Hedgewar Arogya Sansthan, KKD, Delhi dated 01.07.2012 indicates that the injuries caused to the injured/complainant were simple caused by a blunt object.
Taking into account the totality of the circumstances of the case, the non-opposition also on behalf of the State and "the factum that the proceedings against the co-accused with similar allegations against him i.e'.
Aditya Rao Gautam have already been quashed vide order dated 22.08.2016 ofthis Court in Crl.M.C.1042/2016 with there being no other allegations, it is considered appropriate, in the circumstances of the case, to allow the prayer made by the petitioners of both the petitions i.e. CRL.M.C.
1286/2018 & CRL.M.C. 4869/2017 seeking quashing of the FIR
No.274/2012, registered at PS Jagat Puri, under Sections
308/341/427/506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is thus quashed and so arethe consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
ANU MALHOTRA, J MAY 08, 2018 vm
It is informed on behalf of the State that there are no adverse antecedents against the petitioners ofboth the petitions.
The MLC bearing no.1884/12 ofthe injured/complainant as issued by
Dr. Hedgewar Arogya Sansthan, KKD, Delhi dated 01.07.2012 indicates that the injuries caused to the injured/complainant were simple caused by a blunt object.
Taking into account the totality of the circumstances of the case, the non-opposition also on behalf of the State and "the factum that the proceedings against the co-accused with similar allegations against him i.e'.
Aditya Rao Gautam have already been quashed vide order dated 22.08.2016 ofthis Court in Crl.M.C.1042/2016 with there being no other allegations, it is considered appropriate, in the circumstances of the case, to allow the prayer made by the petitioners of both the petitions i.e. CRL.M.C.
1286/2018 & CRL.M.C. 4869/2017 seeking quashing of the FIR
No.274/2012, registered at PS Jagat Puri, under Sections
308/341/427/506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is thus quashed and so arethe consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
ANU MALHOTRA, J MAY 08, 2018 vm
CRL.M.C. 1286/2018 pageno.3of3
JUDGMENT