Sushil Tiwari & Ors. vs Vijay Kumar Luthra & Anr.
2009 Latest Caselaw 3685 Del

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

                    + Crl.M.C. No.2813/2008

                              Date of decision: 10th September, 2009

     Sushil Tiwari & Ors.                   ... Petitioner
            through: Mr. J.C. Garg, Adv.

                              VERSUS

     Vijay Kumar Luthra & Anr.                         ....Respondents
            through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for the State.
            Mr. R.P. Luthra, Adv. for the respondent no. 1 with
            respondent no. 1
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.    By this petition, the petitioner who stands implicated in case

arising out of FIR No. 240/09 registered by police station Farsh Bazar

for commission of alleged offence under section 307/34 of the IPC

prayed for quashing of the proceedings. It has been contended that

the complaint made by respondent no. 2 was registered by the police

and on completion of investigation a charge sheet stands filed and the

matter was pending before the court.       However no evidence of the

prosecution has been led in the matter.
                                  -2-

2.   The petitioner and the respondent no. 2 are identified by learned

counsel representing them in this court. The petition is premised on

the plea that the petitioners and the respondent no.2 are residents of

Shahdara, Delhi and have known each other for a long time. Disputes

arose between them without any premeditation.

3.   It has been contended that the matter stands settled amicably

without any kind of force, pressure, threat or undue influence out of

the free will of the parties. The petitioners and the respondent no. 1

submits that no grievance survive between them and that the

quashing of the proceedings would go a long way towards removing

any ill will which may be existing.    The respondent no. 1 has also

deposed an affidavit dated 8th September, 2009 to the same effect

which has been placed on record.

4.   Mr. Manoh Ohri, learned APP for the state submits that on the

lodging of the complaint, the police was enquuired to take action and

has investigated the matter and has filed a charge sheet.        He has

opposed quashing of the criminal proceedings.

5.   Perusal of the record laid before this court and on consideration

of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties would

manifest that the parties to the case are close neighbours and reside

in the same locality. An effort to reconcile all disputes and differences
                                   -3-

has been indicated.        Undoubtedly, continuation of the criminal

proceedings would result in festering the ill will between them and

prevent normalisation of the relationship.    The parties have also

stated that they have known each other for a long time. The

respondent no. 1 who is a complainant has indicated that he is not

interested in prosecution of the case in view of the settlement of the

parties. Certainly no useful purpose would be served by continuation

of the prosecution. Bringing a quietus to the issue would also further

interest of justice as well as interest of the community and society

where the parties are residing.

6.   However it is stated that the investigating agency was required

to spend time and effort in investigation of the case.     The charge

sheet also stands filed.    Undoubtedly, the public exchequer stands

burdened by the proceedings which have been necessitated. In this

background, the petitioners would require to compensate the state for

the effort which has been expended.

7.   Mr. Sushil Tiwari, the petitioner no. 1 is present.    He comes

forward and submits that an amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be deposited

towards the costs of the proceedings undertaken by the police. The

statement made by the petitioner no.1       is accepted and he shall

remain bound by the same. I am informed that the Delhi Police
                                 -4-

Welfare Society is looking after the welfare and interest of the police

personnel.

     Accordingly, it is directed that subject to the petitioner no. 1

depositing an amount of Rs.50,000/- and the other petitioners

depositing an amount of Rs.1,000/- each towards the costs of the

investigating agency with the Delhi Police Welfare Society, DCP

Provision & Line, Old Police Line (OPL), Delhi within a period of two

weeks from today, all proceedings arising out of FIR No. 240/09

registered by police station Farsh Bazar for commission of alleged

offence under section 307/34 of the IPC shall stand quashed.

     The petitioner shall place a proof of the deposit before the trial

court failing which the further proceedings in the matter shall

continue.

     This petition is allowed in the above terms.

     Dasti



                                      Gita Mittal, J.

September 10, 2009 kr