CRL.M.C./3501/2011 of KALU@ ANAND PRAKASH & ORS Vs STATE & ORS

Court: Delhi High Court
Decision date: 2011-10-20
Bench: V K SHALI
Case number: 3501/2011

Parties

KALU @ ANAND PRAKASH & ORS.PetitionersThroughMr.D.K.Singh,Adv (PETITIONER)
P.S. New New Usmanpur (RESPONDENT)

Cites (1)

CRL.L.P./602/2022 of MS SACHDEVA ENTERPRISES Vs THE STATE AND ANR (2025)

Statutes cited (1)

code of criminal procedure (1973)

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

Show all Body

$~35*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI

+CRL.M.C.3501/2011

KALU @ ANAND PRAKASH & ORS.PetitionersThroughMr.D.K.Singh,Adv.

versus

THE STATE & ORS.Respondents

Through i^r.Sunil Sharma, APPMs.Savita,Adv. for R-2SI Vii<rant Sharma\P.S. New New Usmanpur.

P.S. New New Usmanpur.

CORAM:HON'BLEMR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALIORDER

o/o20.10.2011CrLM.A.No.12415/2011

1.This is an application seeking exemption from filing the certified

copies of annexures.

2.. Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CrI.M.C.No.3501/2011fu/S

482 Cr.P.C.^

1.ThisisapetitionforquashingofFIR no.313/2011,u/S323/341/34IPG registeredby P.S. New Usman Pur in respect ofwhich investigationsare still going on.

2.The ground for quashingof the aforesaidFIR and the consequentinvestigationsis that the petitionershave arrived at settlementwiththerespondentno.2/complainant.Thepetitionersarepresent along^with their counsel and are duly identified.The^respondentno.2 is present along with his counsel and he hasjalso been identified by his counsel as well as by the 10. The]

Signature Not Verified

Signing Date:28.08.2024 16:49:39Certify that the digital and physical file havebeen compared and the digital data is as perthe physical file and no page is missing.

affidavitof the respondentno.2 is placedat page no.43/44ofthe paper book whereinhe has statedthat compromisehasbeenstruckwiththepetitionersandtherefore,hehasnoobjectionin case the aforesaidFIR is quashed.The learned APP does not have any objectionin the quashingofthe aforeiadFIR.

Having regard to the fact that the disputebetween thepartiesis private in nature and no serious offence is involved, I feel thatno useful purpose would be served by keeping the aforesaidFIRand the consequentinvestigationspending.However, since thetimeof thepublicservantshasbeenwasted,thepetitionersshould be put to terms by imposingcosts.Accordingly,subjecttothepetitionersdepositingasumofRs. 10,000/-eachwithDelhiHighCourtLegalServicesCommittee,within two weeks from today, the FIR no.313/2011,u/S 323/341/34IPC registeredby P.S. New UsmanPur and theconsequentinvestigationsstand quashed.The petitionersafterdepositingthe aforesaidamount shall file the originalreceipt ofthe deposit with the 10 and place copy thereof on the record.

V.K. SHALI^J

OCTOBER20, 2011