Pawan Kumar & Ors vs State & Anr
2011 Latest Caselaw 5941 Del

$~39
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+        CRL.M.C. 4032/2011

%               Judgment delivered on:5th December, 2011


         PAWAN KUMAR & ORS                 ..... Petitioner
                    Through : Mr. S.S. Dahiya, Adv.

                        versus


         STATE & ANR                        ..... Respondent
                                 Through : Mr. Naveen Sharma, APP.
                                 Mr. V.D. Mishra, Adv. for R2/complainant.



CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT



SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

CRL. M.A. 18844/2011 (Exemption)

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CRL.M.C. 4032/2011

1        Notice issued.
2        Mr. Naveen Sharma, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of
State.


 3     Mr. V.D. Mishra, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of
Respondent No. 2.
4     Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No.

933 dated 03.12.2005, a case under Sections 448/452/380/427 Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners on complaint of respondent No. 2 at P.S. S.P. Badli, Delhi.

5 Further submits that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.

6 Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the court today with his counsel, Mr. V.D. Mishra, Advocate who duly identifies him. 7 Counsel for Respondent No. 2 on instructions submits that the matter has been settled and respondent No. 2 does not want to pursue the case further and has no objection if the present FIR is quashed. 8 Learned APP for State submits that the matter is at the stage of recording of Prosecution Evidence in the trial court. 9 Learned APP for State further submits that since the Government Machinery has been pressed and the precious time of the court is also consumed, therefore, heavy costs may be imposed upon the petitioners before quashing the FIR. 10 Though, I find force in the submission made by learned APP, but I refrain myself on imposing costs upon the petitioners keeping in view their poor financial position.

11 In the interest of justice, and keeping in view the statement made by respondent No2, I quash FIR No. 933/2005, registered at P.S. S.P. Badli, Delhi and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.

12 Criminal M.C. 4032/2011 stands allowed.

13    Dasti to both the parties.
CRL. M.A. 18843/2011

In view of the above order, the application is dismissed as

infructuous.

SURESH KAIT,J

DECEMBER 05, 2011 j