Prakash & Ors vs State
2012 Latest Caselaw 2235 Del

$~7

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%              Judgment delivered on: 30th March, 2012

+      CRL.M.C. 485/2012


       PRAKASH & ORS                          ..... Petitioners
                               Through: Mr. Yogesh Sharma , Adv.
                      versus


       STATE                                       ..... Respondent
                               Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has sought to quash the FIR No. 117/2011 dated 09.05.2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 324/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at PS Hazrat Nizamuddin against the petitioners No. 1 to 4 on the complaint of petitioner No.5.

2. Ld. counsel further submits that petitioner No.5/complainant has compromised the matter with the petitioners No.1 to 4 vide compromise agreement dated 04.08.2011, thus, he is no more interested to pursue the case further. Therefore, a joint petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused No.1 to 4 and petitioner No.5/complainant. No objection of the petitioner No.5/complainant to this effect is on record.

3. Ld. counsel further submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, since the matter has already been settled amicably between the parties, the instant petition may be allowed.

4. Ld. APP Mr. Navin Sharma submits that the matter is pending for investigation. However, charge-sheet is yet to be filed. If this Court is inclined to quash the FIR, heavy costs should be imposed upon the petitioners No.1 to 4 as the government machinery has been pressed into and precious public time has been consumed. .

5. Keeping in view the compromise agreement dated 04.08.2011 and the statement of petitioner No.2/complainant, who is present in person in the Court and is no more interested to pursue the case further, the aforementioned FIR No. No. 117/2011 registered at PS Hazrat Nizamuddin and all consequent criminal proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

6. Though, I find force in the submissions of the ld. APP on costs, but keeping in view the poor financial condition of the petitioners No.1 to 4, I refrain from imposing costs of the petitioners No.1 to 4.

7. Accordingly, Crl. M.C. No.485/2012 is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

SURESH KAIT, J

MARCH 30, 2012 RS