Rajeshwar Bal & Anr vs State & Anr
2010 Latest Caselaw 3319 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+             CRL. M.C. 2204/2010 and Crl.M.A. 8625/2010

                                                        Decided on 16.07.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :

RAJESHWAR BAL & ANR                                   ..... Petitioners
                   Through : Mr. Sameer Dewan, Adv. with
                             petitioners No.1 & 2 in person.
              versus

STATE & ANR                                                  ..... Respondents
                          Through : Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for State.
                                   ASI Lal Singh, PS Mehrauli
                                    Mr. Madan Lal, Adv. for R-2 with
                                   Respondent No.2 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.315/2009 lodged by him under Sections 308/323/342/34 IPC with PS

Mehrauli.

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

the parties, was civil in nature and related to non-payment of rent by the

petitioners, who were at the relevant time, the tenants of one Smt.

Gyanwati, landlady in respect of the premises bearing No.39-A, Silver Oak

Farm, Ghitorni, New Delhi. Both the parties state that when the respondent

No.2 accompanied the sons of the landlady to seek recovery of rent from the

petitioners, heated words were exchanged between the parties and 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 petitioners 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 have been filed in respect of the FIR No.315/2009, subject matter of the

present petition, as also in respect of the FIR No.306/2009, lodged by the

petitioner No.1 herein against Shri Satinder Lohiya, Sunder Lohiya and Sunil,

petitioners in Crl.M.(M) No.2245/2010. 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 complainant 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 petitioners have

handed over vacant peaceful physical possession of the tenanted premises

to the landlady. 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.315/2009, subject matter of the present proceedings, as also all the

proceedings arising out therefrom, subject to the petitioners and the

respondents No.2 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