Hari Kishan & ORS v. State (Govt Of NCT Of Delhi) & ANR

$~31 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 6484/2018 HARI KISHAN & ORS ..... Petitioners Through Mr.

Sunil Tiwari, Adv.

with petitioners in person

Versus

STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR .... Respondents Through Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP Mr.

Pulkit Dandona, Adv.

with respondent no. 2 in person

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

% 20.12.2018 Amended memo of parties not filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to inadvertence he had stated yesterday that name of complainant/respondent no. 2 was wrongly mentioned as Satender @ Shru instead of Anil @ Kale. He further submits that in this case, Satender @ Shru is the complainant, which is evident from a perusal of the FIR. Accordingly, order dated 19th December, 2018 in respect of filing of fresh amended memo of parties by the petitioners

is recalled.

Respondent no. 2 Satender @ Shru S/o Shri Harkesh Mishra is present in Court along with his counsel and has been identified by SI Nishant of police station Sonia Vihar. Respondent no. 2 says that petitioners were known to him.

A quarrel took place between them on some trivial issue in which he sustained simple injuries. Respondent no.2 submits that he has settled the matter with petitioners of his own free will and without any undue force, pressure or coercion, vide a Compromise Deed dated 3rd December, 2018.

Respondent no. 2 says that he wants to maintain harmonious relations with petitioners, inasmuch as petitioners have compensated respondent no. 2 by paying `10,000/- towards mental pain and agony suffered by him. Respondent no. 2 says that he has no objection in case FIR No.434/2015 under Sections 341/307/ 506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Sonia Vihar and consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. Affidavit of respondent no. 2 to this effect is also on record. Keeping in mind the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent no. 2 voluntarily, in my view, no fruitful purpose would be served to keep the criminal proceedings pending. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, aforesaid FIR and consequent proceedings emanating

therefrom are quashed.

Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Miscellaneous application is disposed of as infructuous.

Dasti.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

DECEMBER 20, 2018 r.bararia