W.P.(CRL)/3083/2015 of PRINCE VERMA Vs THE STATE & ANR

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(CRL) 3083/2015PRINCE VERMA

..... PetitionerThrough:Mr. M.S. Bammi, Mr. Manish Gupta& Mr. Vivek Bhati, Advs.

versus

THE STATE & ANR

..... RespondentThrough:Mr.R.S. Kundu, ASC for the Statewith Mr. Ankit Gulia & Mr. VisheshWadhwa, Advs.S.I. Neeraj Kumar, P.S. MandawaliMr. Nitin Kumar, Adv. for R-2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMARO R R%23.12.2015

Crl.M.A No.18899/2015

Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 3083/2015

The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.915/2015 (P.S. Mandawali)instituted for offences under Sections 394/34 of the IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the bare readingof the FIR it would appear that no case under Section 394 of the IPC can atall be said to have made out.

It is submitted that on 27.09.2015 when the complainant asked the

brother in law of the petitioner to remove his vehicle from the road, someverbal scuffle took place. The father of the complainant was given pushby the brother in law of the petitioner. The matter was settled at that pointof time. However, later, i.e. on 25.10.2015 when the complainant was goingin his car to some place he was intercepted by the petitioner and hisassociates. The complainant was assaulted by the brick-bats and he was alsodivested of his gold chain. As result of the aforesaid, the subject FIR (FIRNo.915/2015) was lodged for investigation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and thecomplainant are neighbours and because of trivial dispute, the present casewas lodged.Later, while the petitioner moved his bail application, thecomplainant had appeared before the Court and submitted that the goldchain was found in his car only.In any view of the matter, with the intervention of the neighbours andwell wishers of both the families, settlement was arrived at. It was agreedbetween the petitioner and respondent No.2 on 20.10.2015 that they shallstay as good neighbour and would not cause any disturbance to each otherin future.

Petitioner and the complainant (respondent No.2) are present in Court.The complainant, respondent No.2 submits that he has no objection to theFIR being quashed.

Considering the fact that petitioner and respondent No.2 areneighbours and the dispute arose out of petty issue of removing the carfrom the road and the grievance of respondent No.2 has now been redressed,this Court is inclined to quash the present FIR.

Considering the aforesaid fact, the subject FIR No.915/2015 (P.S.Mandawali) and all the emanating proceedings thereof are hereby quashed.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J

DECEMBER 23, 2015ns