Shahbaz Khan & Ors vs State
2012 Latest Caselaw 765 Del

$~36

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+           CRL.M.C. 396/2012

%              Judgment delivered on:3rd February, 2012

SHAHBAZ KHAN & ORS            .... Petitioner
                 Through : Ms. Madhulika Jain , Adv.

                      versus
STATE                                     ..... Respondent
                               Through : Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Ld. Counsel for petitioners submits that vide FIR no. 74 dated 23.08.2011 case Under Section 324 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against petitioner no. 1 on the complaint of respondent no. 2 at PS-Chandni Mahal.

2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that in the scuffle petitioner no. 3 & 4 also received injury.

3. It is further submitted that petitioners no. 2 to 4 have compromised the matter with petitioner no. 1 with the intervention of the local person and common friends, therefore, they are no more interested to pursue the case further.

4. Petitioner no. 2 Kasim @ Kashif Mirza, S/o, Sh. Afzal Mirza is personally present in the Court with ASI Surender Singh, who has identified petitioner no. 2 as complainant.

5. Petitioner no. 2 submits that he has settled all the issues qua the

aforesaid FIR and no more interested to pursue the case further against petitioner no. 1. Petitioner no. 3 to 4 are also present in person in the court. They also stand by petitioner no. 2 and state that they no more interested to pursue the case further against petitioner no.1 and if the FIR mentioned above is quashed, they have no objection.

6. Ld. APP on the other hand submits that during investigation offence punishable under Section 326 Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been added after taking the Doctor's opinion on the injury being received by petitioner no. 2 to 4.

7. Ld. APP further submits that though Hon'ble Supreme Court has already referred Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. in SLP (Crl.) No.8989/2010, however, since this Court has been allowing the offence to be compounded, petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 to 4 are of same age as all are very young and scuffle took place on some minor issue. Since they have realized their mistake and assured this Court not to repeat this type of act in future, therefore in these facts and circumstances, FIR may be quashed.

8. Keeping the statement of respondents no. 2 to 4, as they have not interested to pursue the case and they have no objection if the FIR mentioned above is quashed, therefore in the interest of justice, FIR no. 74/2011, PS-Chandni Mahal is quashed.

9. Crl. MC. 396/2012 is allowed on the above terms.

10. Dasti.

SURESH KAIT, J

FEBRUARY 03, 2012 Jg