Delhi High Court
Naved & Anr. vs State & Anr. on 21 October, 2019
$~72
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 21.10.2019
+ CRL.M.C. 5388/2019
NAVED & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.Gaurav Saini, Adv. with
petitioners in person.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.K.K. Ghai, APP for State.
ASI Kailash Chander PS Jamia
Nagar.
Mr.Anees Ahmad, Adv. for R-2 with
R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
Crl.M.A. 38725/2019 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. This application is, accordingly, disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 5388/2019
3. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby
quashing of the FIR No.123/2019 dated 06.07.2019 registered at Police
Station Jamia Nagar for the offences punishable under section 356/379/34
IPC and consequent proceedings arising therefrom.
4. The present petition has been filed on the ground that the petitioners
and respondent no.2/complainant have amicably settled all their disputes and
respondent no.2 has no objection if the present petition is allowed.
5. Respondent No.2 is personally present in Court with his counsel and
he has been identified by ASI Kailash Chander/IO and submits that his bike
was snatched by petitioner no.1 and thereafter he received his bike from the
police station after a month.
6. He submits that he is a teacher and earns his livelihood by tutoring
students and he does not wish to prosecute the matter any further.
7. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the present
petition by submitting that there are serious allegations against the
petitioners, therefore, let them face a trial, however, if this court is inclined
to quash the FIR, heavy cost may be imposed upon the petitioners.
8. It is admitted by petitioner no.1 that he took lift from petitioner no.2
and thereafter, upon seeing respondent no.2/complainant was coming on his
bike, Petitioner No. 1 got down from his vehicle and started discussing the
respondent no.2. Thereafter, he took over Respondent No. 2's bike and
asked petitioner no.2 to go away from that place. After these events,
Petitioner No. 1 took Respondent No. 2's bike to his residence.
9. Since there is no fault of petitioner no.2, who simply gave lift to
petitioner no.1, therefore, while quashing the FIR, I am not inclined to
impose cost upon petitioner no.2.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner no.1, on
instructions from petitioner no.1 who is present in court, has come forward
and agreed to pay an amount of ₹ 50,000/- for welfare purposes.
11. Accordingly, petitioner no.1 is directed to pay an amount of ₹
50,000/- within two weeks from today and out of the said amount, amount of
₹35,000/- shall be paid in favour of repsodent no.2/complainant and balance
amount of ₹15,000/- shall be paid in favour of Delhi High Court Advocate
Welfare Funds.
12. It is made clear that if the amount is not paid within the stipulated
time as directed by this court, Registrar General of this court shall ensure the
recovery as per the law.
13. For the reasons afore-recorded, FIR No.123/2019 dated 06.07.2019
registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar for the offences punishable under
section 356/379/34 IPC and consequent proceedings arising therefrom are
quashed.
14. The petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
15. Order dasti.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 21, 2019
ab
