Satinder Lohia & Ors vs State & Ors
2010 Latest Caselaw 3318 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+             CRL. M.C. 2245/2010 and Crl.M.A. 8754/2010

                                                        Decided on 16.07.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :

SATINDER LOHIA & ORS                                  ..... Petitioners
                   Through : Mr. Madan Lal, Adv. with
                             petitioners in person.

                      versus

STATE & ORS                                                  ..... Respondents
                           Through : Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for State.
                                    ASI Raj Singh, PS Mehrauli
                                     Mr. Sameer Dewan, Adv. for R-2 & 3
                                     with R-2 & 3 in person.

CORAM

* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

     1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may
        be allowed to see the Judgment?                       No

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                No

     3. Whether the judgment should be                        No
        reported in the Digest?

HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482

Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for quashing of proceedings initiated by the

respondent No.2/complainant against the petitioners on the basis of an FIR

No.306/2009 lodged by him under Sections 323/452/506/34 IPC registered

with PS Mehrauli.

2. It is stated in the petition that the dispute between the

petitioners and respondents No.2 & 3 (petitioners in Crl.M.C.2204/2010)

arose out of non-payment of rent by the respondent No.2 & 3, who are the

tenants of one Smt. Gyanwati, landlady in respect of the premises bearing

No.39-A, Silver Oak Farm, Ghitorni, New Delhi. The petitioners herein are

the sons of the landlady. Both the parties state that when the mother of the

petitioners wanted to seek recovery of rent from the respondents No.2 & 3,

they visited the house of the respondents No.2 and 3 with a friend and

heated words were exchanged between the parties. Thus, a trivial issue got

blown out of proportion and in the scuffle which took place between the

parties, both sustained some injuries. As a result, cross-complaints were

filed by both the parties against each other. It is further stated that within

the one week of the aforesaid incident, the parties arrived at a mutual

settlement, in terms of which the respondents paid the arrears of rent to the

landlady and also handed over vacant peaceful physical possession of the

tenanted premises to her.

3. Both the parties sought and were granted anticipatory bail in the

two FIRs lodged by them against each other. Thereafter a challan is stated

to been filed in respect of the FIR No.306/2009, subject matter of the

present petition, as also in respect of the FIR No.315/2009, lodged by the

respondent No.2 herein against Shri Parvinder Kumar, respondent in

Crl.M.C. No.2204/2010. It is stated by the parties that in view of the

aforesaid settlement arrived at between them, no useful purpose will be

served by proceeding further with the aforesaid FIRs and the proceedings

arising therefrom and it would be in the interest of justice that the

settlement arrived at between the parties be accepted and the respective

FIRs, subject matter of the present petition as also the Crl.M.(M)

No.2245/2010, be quashed.

4. Learned APP for the State also states that he does not seriously

oppose the prayer made in the present petition. However, he submits that

in view of the fact that the petitioners and the complainants have set into

motion the legal machinery of the State, which has resulted in incurring

unnecessary expenditure and wastage of valuable time, they be put to terms

for seeking the relief in the present petition.

5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the

parties. Parties are present in the Court and confirm having arrived at the

aforesaid settlement. The disputes between the parties were apparently civil

in nature and the same have been resolved amicably. The respondents have

handed over vacant peaceful physical possession of the tenanted premises

to the landlady, mother of the petitioners. No further disputes subsist

between the parties and they state that they do not have any pending

grievance against each other.

6. In these circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to quash FIR

No.306/2009, subject matter of the present proceedings, as also all the

proceedings arising out therefrom, subject to the petitioners and the

respondents No.2 & 3 depositing a sum of Rs.5,000/- each, payable to the

Juvenile Justice Board, within a period of one week from today.

7. The petition is disposed of along with the pending application.

                                                             (HIMA KOHLI)
JULY   16, 2010                                                 JUDGE
sk