Anand Prakash & Ors. vs The State
2013 Latest Caselaw 4814 Del

$~R-11
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      CRL.A.49/2005
%                                  Judgment dated 21st October, 2013

       ANAND PRAKASH & ORS.               ..... Appellants
               Through : Mr.A.K. Mishra, Advocate

                          versus

       THE STATE                                          ..... Respondent
                Through :          Mr.Firoz Ahmed Ghazi, Adv for State.

       CORAM:
                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.11.2004 and order on sentence dated 30.11.2004 by which the appellants have been sentenced to the period already undergone for the offence committed under Section 326/34 IPC and further the appellants were directed to pay fine of Rs.4000/- each, and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment of one month.

2. Counsel for the appellants submits that while deciding the matter, the trial court had taken into account that parties are neighbours, related to each other and that they had arrived at an amicable settlement.

3. Counsel for the appellants submits that at that stage, the appellants were ill-advised and they did not seek quashing of the FIR. Counsel also submits that one of the appellants is a government servant and in case the order of conviction is not set aside, he would be dismissed from service. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the appeal be converted into quashing petition and the proceedings arising out of the FIR No.126/200

registered under Section 326/34 IPC at P.S. R.K. Puram, Delhi, including judgment dated 29.11.2004 and order on sentence dated 30.11.2004, be quashed/ set aside.

4. Ms.Neetu and Mr.Jai Kishore are present in court. They submit that they have arrived at an amicable settlement with the appellants and they had filed the necessary affidavits before the trial court. They reiterated that in view of the settlement they have no objection if the FIR and all the proceedings, including judgment dated 29.11.2004 and order on sentence dated 30.11.2004, are quashed/ set aside.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions. The appeal be treated as a petition for quashing the FIR and proceedings arising therefrom, including judgment dated 29.11.2004 and order on sentence dated 30.11.2004.

6. In the order on sentence, the trial court has observed that the affidavit of injured, Balkishan, Smt.Omwati, Ms.Neetu and affidavits of Smt.Sunita, Ms.Naresh Kumari and Mr.Jai Kishore have been filed. The same are noticed in para 2 of the order, which reads as under:

"2. Ld. defence counsel submits that both the parties have settled the matter amicably and the injured have also settled with the convicts. He has filed affidavit of injured Balkishan, Smt.Omwati, Ms.Neetu. An affidavit of Ms.Sunita, Ms.Naresh Kumari and Jai Kishore has also been filed. He also submits that the accused persons remained in judicial custody for 17 days and requests for taking a lineant (sic „lenient‟) view."

7. It is not disputed before this court that the High Court has the power to quash the FIR and proceedings even at the appellate stage. Having regard to the fact that parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and the trial court had granted a sentence of period already undergone which was approximately 17 days, and in view of the settlement arrived at between

the parties, all the proceedings arising out of the FIR No.126/200 registered under Section 326/34 IPC at P.S. R.K. Puram, Delhi, including the judgment dated 29.11.2004 and order on sentence dated 30.11.2004, are quashed/ set aside.

8. The petition stands disposed of, in above terms.

G.S.SISTANI, J OCTOBER 21, 2013 ssn