Full Text
Translation output
$-24 & 25 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 4932/2015
SANJAY KUMAR Petitioner
Through Ms.Jyoti Taneja, Advocate,
CRL.M.C. 4932/2015
SANJAY KUMAR Petitioner
Through Ms.Jyoti Taneja, Advocate,
VERSUS
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) Respondent
Through Ms.Meenakshi Dahiya, APT along with SI Mukesh Meena.
Mr.Nikhilesh Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
Through Ms.Meenakshi Dahiya, APT along with SI Mukesh Meena.
Mr.Nikhilesh Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
CRL.M.C. 4937/2015
MANJU & ORS. Petitioner
Through Mr.Nikhilesh Kumar, Advocate,
MANJU & ORS. Petitioner
Through Mr.Nikhilesh Kumar, Advocate,
VERSUS
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) & ANR. Respondent
Through Mr.Tarang Srivastava, APP along with SI Mukesh Meena.
Ms.Jyoti Taneja, Advocate for complainant.
Through Mr.Tarang Srivastava, APP along with SI Mukesh Meena.
Ms.Jyoti Taneja, Advocate for complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
04.12.2015 CrI.M.A.No.17686/2015 (exemption) in CRL.M.C. 4932/2015
CrI.M.A.No.17687/2015 (exemption^ in CRL.M.C. 4932/2015
CrI.M.A.No.17691/2015 (exemption) in CRL.M.C. 4937/2015
Crl.M.A.No.17692/2015 (exemption) in CRL.M.C. 4937/2015
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Applications disposed of.
04.12.2015 CrI.M.A.No.17686/2015 (exemption) in CRL.M.C. 4932/2015
CrI.M.A.No.17687/2015 (exemption^ in CRL.M.C. 4932/2015
CrI.M.A.No.17691/2015 (exemption) in CRL.M.C. 4937/2015
Crl.M.A.No.17692/2015 (exemption) in CRL.M.C. 4937/2015
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Applications disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 4932/2015
CRL. M.C. 4937/2015
2015:DHC:11335 These are two joint petitions seeking quashing of two cross-
FIRs i.e. FIR Nos.801/2015 under Sections 342/506/509/34 ofthe IPC and 802/2015 under Sections 354A/506/509 of the IPC registered at police station Sagar Pur. The complainant in FIR No.801/2015 is
Anu who is present in Court. Her presence has been identified by the
Investigaing Officer. In the second FIR i.e. FIR No.802/2015 complainant is Manju. She is also present. Her presence has been identified by the Investigating Officer.
Parties state that they are neighbours. They have arrived at a settlement. The dispute had arisen over a gate which was common to both the parties. FIR has been registered due to misunderstandingand misapprehension. They have no grievance or complaint left against one another. They do not want to pursue these litigations. Settlement deed dated 20.11.2015 duly signed by both the parties has been placed on record. Learned counsels for the parties submit the proceedings at initial stage. They accordingly pray that the present FIR be quashed.
Learned APP for the State submits that if at all the present FIR 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, while allowing the prayers made in the petitions and quashing the FIR Nos.801/2015 under Sections 342/506/509/34 of the IPC and 802/2015 under Sections 354A/506/509 of the IPC registered at police station Sagar Pur as also the proceedings emanating therefrom, petitioners in each petition are burdened with cost of Rs.20,000/-to be deposited by the petitioner in the account of
I theDelhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
Petitions disposed of.
DECEMBER 04, 2015 ndn INDERMEET KAUR, J
2015:DHC:11335 These are two joint petitions seeking quashing of two cross-
FIRs i.e. FIR Nos.801/2015 under Sections 342/506/509/34 ofthe IPC and 802/2015 under Sections 354A/506/509 of the IPC registered at police station Sagar Pur. The complainant in FIR No.801/2015 is
Anu who is present in Court. Her presence has been identified by the
Investigaing Officer. In the second FIR i.e. FIR No.802/2015 complainant is Manju. She is also present. Her presence has been identified by the Investigating Officer.
Parties state that they are neighbours. They have arrived at a settlement. The dispute had arisen over a gate which was common to both the parties. FIR has been registered due to misunderstandingand misapprehension. They have no grievance or complaint left against one another. They do not want to pursue these litigations. Settlement deed dated 20.11.2015 duly signed by both the parties has been placed on record. Learned counsels for the parties submit the proceedings at initial stage. They accordingly pray that the present FIR be quashed.
Learned APP for the State submits that if at all the present FIR 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, while allowing the prayers made in the petitions and quashing the FIR Nos.801/2015 under Sections 342/506/509/34 of the IPC and 802/2015 under Sections 354A/506/509 of the IPC registered at police station Sagar Pur as also the proceedings emanating therefrom, petitioners in each petition are burdened with cost of Rs.20,000/-to be deposited by the petitioner in the account of
I theDelhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
Petitions disposed of.
DECEMBER 04, 2015 ndn INDERMEET KAUR, J
JUDGMENT