Kripal Bhardwaj & Anr. vs The State & Anr.
2009 Latest Caselaw 3142 Del

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

                     WP (Crl.) No.1110/2009

                              Date of decision: 12th August, 2009

     Kripal Bhardwaj & Anr.                ....Petitioner
                through: Mr. M. Qayam-Ud-Din, Adv. for petitioners
                             with petitioners in person.

                               VERSUS

     The State & Anr.                        ....Respondents
                through: Counsel for the respondent no.2 with
                             respondent no.2 in person.
                             Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for the State with ASI
                             Shiv Kumar.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
     1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to
         see the Judgment?
     2.To be referred to the Reporter or not?
     3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

 GITA MITTAL, J(Oral)
*
1.    A minor dispute between the petitioners on the one hand and the

respondent no.2 on the other, over parking resulted in registration of

FIR No.515/2007 dated 4th July, 2007 by the police station Shakarpur

under Sections 452/308/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter

is stated to be still at the stage of investigation.

2.    This petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for

quashing of the proceedings arising out of the FIR on the ground that
                                  -2-

a settlement has been arrived at with the complainant who is arrayed

as respondent no.2.

3.   The petitioners and the respondent no.2 are present.          The

petitioner no.1 has filed photocopy of his election identity card,

petitioner no.2 has placed photocopy of the ration card while

respondent no.2 has placed photocopy of his election card. The same

have been compared with the originals produced by these persons

and scrutinised by ASI Shiv Kumar from the Crime Branch of the Delhi

Police who has compared their authenticity and identity.

4.   It has been stated by and on behalf of the parties that they are

close neighbours and have amicably resolved their disputes with the

intervention of respectables and relatives. In view of the proximity in

which they are residing and having business, the parties and counsel

have prayed that the proceedings in the case be quashed in order to

enable them to restore normalcy to their relationship.

5.   Respondent no.2 has sworn an affidavit in support of the prayer

made in the petition and submits that having regard to the close

proximity with the petitioners in respect of residence and location of

their business premises, he does not wish to prosecute the case.

6.   Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having regard

to the nature of disputes which appear to have arisen out of a private
                                    -3-

dispute relating to parking of a vehicle, it would appear to be in the

interest of justice if they are given an opportunity to harmonize the

relations between them.     The fact that they are neighbours reflects

that it would also be in the society's interest that the parties are given

a chance to remove the acrimony which may be existing between

them.

7.   However, it remains a fact that a case was registered and

investigation was going on. Undoubtedly, time, effort and expenditure

have been expended by the investigating agency and a burden has

enured to the public exchequer towards the present case as well. The

petitioners are, therefore, required to compensate the investigating

agency. I am told that Delhi Police Welfare Society is looking after the

welfare of the police personnel.

8.   Accordingly, it is directed that subject to the petitioners

depositing an amount of Rs.5,000/- each with the Delhi Police Welfare

Society, DCP Provision & Line, Old Police Line (OPL), Delhi within a

period of two weeks from today, further proceedings in the case

arising out of FIR No.515/2007 dated 4th July, 2007 by the police

station Shakarpur under Sections 452/308/506/34 of the Indian Penal

Code shall stand hereby quashed.
                                   -4-

9.   The petitioner shall furnish proof of deposit before the trial court

as well as on the record of the present case immediately on deposit

failing which prosecution of the case shall proceed.

     Let a copy of the direction with regard to the deposit be

communicated to the Commissioner of Delhi Police.

     This petition is allowed in the above terms.

     Dasti.




August 12, 2009                                     Gita Mittal, J.

aa