Naresh Yadav & Ors. vs State & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3323 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                               Crl.M.C. No. 366/2010

                                                        Decided on 16.07.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :

NARESH YADAV & ORS.                          ..... Petitioners
                  Through: Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj and
                  Mr.Parvesh Chaudhary, Advocates along with
                  Petitioners in person

                    versus

STATE & ORS.                                                ..... Respondents
                          Through: Mr. M.N.Dudeja, APP for State
                          Mr.Bhawani Shankar Sharma, Advocate for R-2
                          along with R-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

of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.656/2006 under

Sections 308/341/34 IPC registered with PS Anand Vihar, Delhi lodged by

the complainant, respondent No.2.

2. It is stated in the petition that the petitioners were labourers

who used to work in a private limited company at Patparganj where the

respondent No.2 was employed to the post of Supervisor. On 16.12.2006,

there was a heated exchange of words between them and the respondent

No.2 as a result of which, the parties in a fit of anger, exchanged blows and

also inflicted some injuries on each other. This resulted in filing of the

aforesaid FIR. It is now stated that though a charge sheet was filed in the

present case which is pending before the learned ASJ, Karkardoom Court

and in which the respondent No.2 has been examined, but during the course

of the trial, with the intervention of colleagues of the petitioners and the

respondent No.2 and the other employees of the aforesaid company where

the parties were working, they have voluntarily arrived at a settlement, in

terms of which it has been decided by the respondent No.2 not to pursue the

aforesaid FIR against the petitioners.

3. The parties are present in the court. It is confirmed by the

respondent No.2 that he has arrived at a settlement with the petitioners and

he does not wish to pursue the present FIR any further. Learned APP does

not seriously oppose the prayer made in the present petition. Parties shall

remain bound by the terms and conditions of their mutual settlement.

However in view of the fact that the legal machinery has been set into

motion by the parties, who now seek quashing of the FIR, the petitioners are

directed to pay some costs which is expected to act as a deterrent in the

future. In these circumstances, while allowing the present petition and

quashing FIR No.656/2006 and the proceedings arising therefrom, each of

the petitioners shall deposit costs of Rs.5,000/- with the Juvenile Justice

Board against receipt, within one week.

4. The petition is disposed of. File be consigned to the record room.

                                                              (HIMA KOHLI)
JULY      16, 2010                                               JUDGE
mk