Full Text
Translation output
#■
$-34 & 35 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL) 63/2016
ASHISH SHARMA & ORS Petitioners
Through Ms.Astha, Advocate,
$-34 & 35 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL) 63/2016
ASHISH SHARMA & ORS Petitioners
Through Ms.Astha, Advocate,
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR Respondents
Through Mr.R.S.Kundu, ASC along with SI Pooja Saraswat.
Through Mr.R.S.Kundu, ASC along with SI Pooja Saraswat.
W.P.(CRL) 64/2016
MINAXI GUPTA BIYANI & ANR Petitioners
Through Ms.Astha, Advocate,
MINAXI GUPTA BIYANI & ANR Petitioners
Through Ms.Astha, Advocate,
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR Respondents
Through Mr.R.S.Kundu, ASC along with SI Pooja Saraswat.
Through Mr.R.S.Kundu, ASC along with SI Pooja Saraswat.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
11.01.2016 Crl.M.A.No.391/2016 (exemption) in W.P.(CRL) 63/2016
Crl.M.A.No.392/2016 (exemption) in W.F.(CRL) 64/2016
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Application disposed of
11.01.2016 Crl.M.A.No.391/2016 (exemption) in W.P.(CRL) 63/2016
Crl.M.A.No.392/2016 (exemption) in W.F.(CRL) 64/2016
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Application disposed of
W.P.(CRL) 63/2016
W.P.(CRL) 64/2016
These two petitions seeks quashing of two cross FIRs i.e. FIR
No.972/2014 registered under Sections 452/323/354A/34 of the IPG on the complaint of "MG"; FIR No.973/2014 registered under
Sections 3423/509/34 of the IPG on the complaint of "HS" at police station Vivek Vihar.
Complainants in both the FIRs are present in person in Court.
2016:DHC:9319 'r V Presence ofthe complainant has been identified by the Investigating officer.
Contents ofthe FIR have been perused.
It is stated that the FIRs have been registered due to misunderstanding and misapprehension and now with the intervention ofthe elders ofthe society the parties have settled their disputes and they have no grievance or complaint left against each another. They
^ j accordingly praythatthe presentFIRsbe quashed.
Learned AFP for the State submits that if at all the FIRs is permitted to be quashed it should be quashed subject to costs as the
State machinery has been put in to motion and the State has incurred expenses.
Accordingly, FIR No.972/2014 registered under Sections
452/323/354A/34 of the IPG and FIR No.973/2014 registered under
Sections 3423/509/34 of the IPG on the complaint of"HS" both at police station Vivek Vihar as also all the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- to be deposited by the petitioners (in each petitioq) with the Delhi High
Court Legal Services Committee.
Petitions disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR,J JANUARY 11,2016 ndn 2016:DHC:9319
These two petitions seeks quashing of two cross FIRs i.e. FIR
No.972/2014 registered under Sections 452/323/354A/34 of the IPG on the complaint of "MG"; FIR No.973/2014 registered under
Sections 3423/509/34 of the IPG on the complaint of "HS" at police station Vivek Vihar.
Complainants in both the FIRs are present in person in Court.
2016:DHC:9319 'r V Presence ofthe complainant has been identified by the Investigating officer.
Contents ofthe FIR have been perused.
It is stated that the FIRs have been registered due to misunderstanding and misapprehension and now with the intervention ofthe elders ofthe society the parties have settled their disputes and they have no grievance or complaint left against each another. They
^ j accordingly praythatthe presentFIRsbe quashed.
Learned AFP for the State submits that if at all the FIRs is permitted to be quashed it should be quashed subject to costs as the
State machinery has been put in to motion and the State has incurred expenses.
Accordingly, FIR No.972/2014 registered under Sections
452/323/354A/34 of the IPG and FIR No.973/2014 registered under
Sections 3423/509/34 of the IPG on the complaint of"HS" both at police station Vivek Vihar as also all the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- to be deposited by the petitioners (in each petitioq) with the Delhi High
Court Legal Services Committee.
Petitions disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR,J JANUARY 11,2016 ndn 2016:DHC:9319
JUDGMENT