Suresh & Anr vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 1670 Del

$~11
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                           Judgment delivered on: 01st March, 2016

+                          CRL.M.C. No.886/2016

      SURESH & ANR
                                                          ..... Petitioners
                           Represented by:   Mr.Prashant Mandiratta &
                                             Mr.Rohit Gupta, Advs
                                             with petitioners in person.
                    versus
      STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
                                                       ..... Respondents
                           Represented by:   Mr.Satya Narain
                                             Vashisht, APP for the
                                             State with SI Bangali
                                             Babu, PS Sunlight
                                             Colony, Delhi.
                                             Mr.Lalit Choudhary, Adv
                                             for R2 with R2/
                                             complainant in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

Crl.M.A. No.3734/2016 (for exemption) Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

CRL.M.C. No.886/2016

1. Vide the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.290/2011 registered vide order dated 27.05.2011 by learned Trial Court in CC No.113/1/11 at Police Station Sun Light Colony for the

offences punishable under Sections 323/341/34 of the IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against them.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit that the on the altercation which took place on 15.08.2010, in the complaint case under Section 200 Cr P C and application under Section 156(3) Cr P C filed by respondent No.2, present case FIR registered against petitioners, who are police officials. Due to said altercation dated 15.08.2010, another case FIR No.290/2010 was also registered against respondent No.2 and another person Prashant Chopra. As duo received the injuries, but police did not register any case, leading to filing of complaint case by respondent No.2 before learned Trial Court, wherein vide order dated 27.05.2011, learned Trial Court directed for registration of FIR against petitioners. Both the parties have also filed Crl.M.C.No.899/2016 for the quashing of FIR No.290/2010.

3. After investigation police filed charge sheet in both the cases and after framing of charges matter is pending trial before learned Trial Court. Meanwhile, both the parties have entered into a settlement dated 15.02.2016 whereby they agreed to compound/withdraw their respective cases against each other. Thus, pursuant to the said settlement, respondent No.2 is no more interested to pursue the case against petitioners.

4. Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court through learned counsel above named and has been duly identified by the Investigating Officer of the case. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, under instructions does not dispute the statement made by

learned counsel for petitioners. The affidavit of respondent No.2 is at Page No.18 of the petition. He further affirms the settlement dated 15.02.2016 and states that respondent No.2 does not have any objection, if the present petition is allowed.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that charge-sheet has been filed by the police in both the cases and matter is pending trial before learned Trial Court. Due to aforesaid altercation took place, police registered the case FIR No.299/2010 and thereafter, respondent No.2 filed a criminal case which culminated into registration afore noted FIR No.290/2011.

6. He further submits that offence punishable under Section 323/341/34 of the IPC are compoundable in nature and instead of moving before learned Trial Court for compounding of the matter, the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr P C for the reason that they compromised both the matters and in the former FIR No.299/2010 of non-compoundable offences punishable under Section 186/332/353/34 of the IPC. Since both the parties have amicably settled the matter and the respondent No.2/ complainant does not wish to pursue the case against the petitioners, therefore, looking to the overall circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings. Thus, the State has no objection if the present petition is allowed.

7. Both the parties who are present in the Court today, approbate the aforesaid settlement dated 15.02.2016 and undertake to remain bound by the same.

8. In view of the above discussion, considering the settlement arrived at between the parties and the statement of respondent Nos.1&2, I am of the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus as continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.

9. Consequently, FIR No.290/2011 registered at Police Station Sun Light Colony for the offences punishable under Sections 323/341/34 of the IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

10. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed with no order as to costs.

SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) MARCH 01, 2016 M