Full Text
Translation output
•>
< $-22 & 24 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL) 107/2018, Crl.M.A.No.659/2018 &
Crl.M.A.No.660/2018 RACHNA TYAGI & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr.S.K.Mishra, Advocate
< $-22 & 24 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL) 107/2018, Crl.M.A.No.659/2018 &
Crl.M.A.No.660/2018 RACHNA TYAGI & ORS Petitioners
Through Mr.S.K.Mishra, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR Respondents
Through Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel with Mr.Jamal Akhtar, Mr.Prashant
Singh and Mr.Chaitanya Gosain, Advocates.
Through Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel with Mr.Jamal Akhtar, Mr.Prashant
Singh and Mr.Chaitanya Gosain, Advocates.
W.P.(CRL) 112/2018, Crl.M.A.No.685/2018 and
Crl.M.A.No.686/2018 . SMT BHAGWATI DEVI JOSHI & ORS
Petitioners
Through Mr.Ishant Garg, Advocate.
Crl.M.A.No.686/2018 . SMT BHAGWATI DEVI JOSHI & ORS
Petitioners
Through Mr.Ishant Garg, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR Respondents
Through Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel with Mr.Jamal Akhtar, Mr.Prashant
Singh and Mr.Chaitanya Gosain, Advocates.
Through Mr.Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel with Mr.Jamal Akhtar, Mr.Prashant
Singh and Mr.Chaitanya Gosain, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
12.0L2018 Parties are seeking quashing of the FIRs i.e. the FIR
2018:DHC:8684 9- No.191/2012 registered under Sections 406/420/468/471/I20B of the
IPG on the complaintof one Rachna Tyagi at police station Dabri and the second FIR i.e. the FIR No.311/2012 also registered under
Sections 416/417/418/419/420/463/464/468/471 read with Section
120B/34 of the IPG on the complaint of Bhagwati Devi Joshi at the same police station.
The dispute is centered around a property. This dispute was largely between two families i.e. Joshi family and Tyagi family. FIRs had been registered in the year 2012. This Gourt has been informed
^ that charge sheet has since not been filed. It was largely for the reason that the parties were trying to settle the dispute that the investigation could not progress. Parties have entered into a memorandum of settlement dated 09.10.2017; it is marked as Ex.PA; details of the settlement find mention in it. This settles scores on both the FIRs. The parties shall be bound by the terms and conditions as contained in Ex.PA. Parties are present in person. They endorse the terms and conditions of the settlement as contained in Ex.PA.
To secure ends of justice this is a fit case where the prayer f made in the petitions should be granted as the trial would be an exercise in futility. However, now the submission of the learned
Standing Counsel for the State is that the investigation has progressed in the matter and the FIR remained pending, for the last 5 years; the parties should be burdened with costs if at all the prayers made in the petitions are allowed.
Accordingly, while allowing the prayers made in the petitions and quashing the FIR No.191/2012 registered under Sections
406/420/468/471/120B of the IPG and the FIR No.311/2012 registered under Sections 416/417/418/419/420/463/464/468/471 read with Section 120B/34 of the IPG both at police station Dabri and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, each of the petitioners in each of the petitions are burdened with costs of Rs.5000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Gourt Legal Services Gommittee.j
Petitions disposed of.
JANUARY 12, 2018 ndn INDERMEET KAUR, J
12.0L2018 Parties are seeking quashing of the FIRs i.e. the FIR
2018:DHC:8684 9- No.191/2012 registered under Sections 406/420/468/471/I20B of the
IPG on the complaintof one Rachna Tyagi at police station Dabri and the second FIR i.e. the FIR No.311/2012 also registered under
Sections 416/417/418/419/420/463/464/468/471 read with Section
120B/34 of the IPG on the complaint of Bhagwati Devi Joshi at the same police station.
The dispute is centered around a property. This dispute was largely between two families i.e. Joshi family and Tyagi family. FIRs had been registered in the year 2012. This Gourt has been informed
^ that charge sheet has since not been filed. It was largely for the reason that the parties were trying to settle the dispute that the investigation could not progress. Parties have entered into a memorandum of settlement dated 09.10.2017; it is marked as Ex.PA; details of the settlement find mention in it. This settles scores on both the FIRs. The parties shall be bound by the terms and conditions as contained in Ex.PA. Parties are present in person. They endorse the terms and conditions of the settlement as contained in Ex.PA.
To secure ends of justice this is a fit case where the prayer f made in the petitions should be granted as the trial would be an exercise in futility. However, now the submission of the learned
Standing Counsel for the State is that the investigation has progressed in the matter and the FIR remained pending, for the last 5 years; the parties should be burdened with costs if at all the prayers made in the petitions are allowed.
Accordingly, while allowing the prayers made in the petitions and quashing the FIR No.191/2012 registered under Sections
406/420/468/471/120B of the IPG and the FIR No.311/2012 registered under Sections 416/417/418/419/420/463/464/468/471 read with Section 120B/34 of the IPG both at police station Dabri and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, each of the petitioners in each of the petitions are burdened with costs of Rs.5000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Gourt Legal Services Gommittee.j
Petitions disposed of.
JANUARY 12, 2018 ndn INDERMEET KAUR, J
JUDGMENT