CRL.M.C./2239/2011 of ARVIND & ORS. Vs STATE & ORS.
Parties
- ARVIND & ORS (PETITIONER)
- STATE & ORS (RESPONDENT)
Cited by (2)
Counts citations resolved within this build's own ingested judgment corpus. The true corpus-wide count will be higher until more of the corpus is ingested.
Cites (0 resolved of 1 detected)
1 case citation detected in this judgment's own text, but none resolved to a judgment page in this build yet.
Statutes cited (1)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
$-27*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI
+CRLM.C. 2239/2011
ARVIND & ORS.
PetitionersTlirough:Mr.S.A. Rajput, Advocate with thepetitioners
versus
STATE & ORS.
Respondents
Through: Mr. Arvind K. Gupta, APR for theState with SI Ram Pal, PS Uttam NagarRespondentNo.2 in person.
CORAM:HON'BLEMR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
ORDER%20.07.2011
CrI.M.A.No.8129/2011
Exemptionallowed, subject to all just exceptions.CRL.M.C.2239/2011
1.*Presentpetitionhas beenfiledfor quashingtheF.I.R.No.75/2009dated12.03.2009registeredat P.S.UttamNagarunder Section 308/34 of the I.P.C. against the petitioners.2.Ld. APP for the State states that after investigation,thechargesheetwas filedby the Stateand that the chargehasalreadybeenframed.Thecaseis pendingforprosecutionevidence.
3.Ld. Counselfor thepetitionerssubmitsthatwith theinterventionof sonnewell wishersand relativesof the parties,the matter was amicablysettledbetweenthemregardingthepresent F.I.R. No.75/2009 and compromise has been enteredinto between them dated 30.05.2011,which is placed on record.4.The petitionersand the complainantare staying in thesame locality. RespondentNo.2, who is presentin the Court,states that he does not wish to pursue the matter and also statesthat he has no objection to the quashing of the aforesaidFIR.5.Since the matterhas beencompromisedbetweentheparties and more so the day of incident was 'Holi' day.Thepetitionershave now realized their mistake.
6.Inviewoftheabove,theF.I.R.No.75/2009dated12.03.2009registeredagainstthepetitionersatP.S. UttamNagar under Section 308/34 of the I.P.C. and all proceedings>emanatingtherefrom are quashed.7.Since, the police has been used and the precious time ofthis Court has also been wasted,I impose the cost of T10,000/-eachonthepetitionerswhichshallbedepositedwiththeAdvocatesWelfareFund, Delhi Bar Council,within weel<. Proofof the same shall be placed on record.
8.The CRL.M.C. 2239/2011stands disposedof in the above
terms.
SURESH KAIT, J
JULY 2:0, 2011
i/1C>lO-'-"r-O i-'S.-G y