Ravinder & Ors. vs State & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4847 Del

$~24
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+            CRL.MC No.3253/2011

%            Judgment delivered on:28th September,2011

        RAVINDER & ORS.                         ..... Petitioners
                     Through : Mr. Salone Kantroo, Adv.

                  versus


        STATE & ORS.                          ..... Respondents
                         Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for
                                   State

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
        may be allowed to see the judgment?                    NO
     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                     NO
     3. Whether the judgment should be reported                NO
        in the Digest?

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Ld. counsel for the petitioners submits that FIR No.216

dated 23.06.2011 was registered under Section

323/341/379/56/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the

petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2 at PS Sarai

Rohilla.

2. Ld. counsel for the petitioners further submits that vide

settlement dated 21.09.2011, which is annexed as Annexure A

at page 21 of the petition, the matter has been compromised

between respondent No.2 and the petitioners.

3. He further states that respondent No.2 is no more

interested to pursue the matter further, therefore, prays for

quashing of aforesaid FIR.

4. Respondent No.2 Aashu @ Ashwani Kumar is present in

Court and he is identified by IO SI Ramphal PS Sarai Rohilla.

5. Respondent No.2 submits that all the issues have been

settled qua the aforesaid FIR, therefore, has no objection if the

present FIR is quashed.

6. Keeping the settlement dated 21.09.2011 into view and

that respondent No.2 does not want to pursue the case further,

in the interest of justice I quash FIR No.216 dated 23.06.2011

under Section 323/341/379/56/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860

registered against the petitioners on the complaint of

respondent No.2 at PS Sarai Rohilla.

7. Ld. APP submits that case is pending for prosecution

evidence and charge-sheet has not yet been filed. She further

submits that while quashing FIR heavy cost should be imposed

on the petitioners.

8. I find force in the submission of ld. APP, however, keeping

in view the financial position of the petitioners I refrain

imposing cost on the petitioners.

9. CRL.M.C. 3253/2011 is allowed.

SURESH KAIT,J

SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 Vld/RS