Vikrant @ Vicky @ Golu & Anr v. State & Ors

ORDER

30.07.2013 The above captioned two petitions arise out of one incident of 26^ May, 2013, when a quarrel took place amongst petitioners and respondents of these petitions. Pursuant thereto, FIR No. 144/2013,under Sections 308/427/506/34 of the IPC (in Crl. M.C. No. 2954/2013) and cross FIR No. 143/2003, under Sections 308/452/34 of the IPC (in Crl. Crl. M.C. No. 2954/2013 Crl. M.C. No. 2955/2013 Page 1 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. i M.C. No. 2955/2013) were got registered at Police Station Sector -23 Dwarka, Delhi quashing of which is sought by parties in these petitions on the ground that inter se dispute between the parties has been resolved through Panchayat and Biradari in terms of Compromise Deed of }\mQ,2Q\2>(Annexure-^C). Notice. Mr. Mukesh Gupta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Varun Kumar and Mr. Atul Bandhu, Advocates, accept notice on behalf of remaining respondentsin both the above petitions. Counsel representing both sides submit that parties are present in person. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1-State submits that on the basis of identity proof produced by the parties, they have been identified as petitioners and respondents in the above captioned petitions by SI Samay Kumar, InvestigatingOfficer of this case. Pradeep Kumar, Satish Kumar and Surender Kumar are complainants of FIR No. 143/2013 (in Crl. M.C. No. 2954/2013) and Sumanand Vikrant@ Vicky, are complainantof FIR No. 144/2013(in Crl. M.C. No.2955/2013), who are present in the Court and they submit that they are neighbours and the misunderstandinghas now been cleared with petitioner-accused persons and now no dispute survives amongst them and they affirm contentsof their affidavitsplaced on record giving no objectionto the quashingof FIR in question. In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Courthas recognizedthe need of amicableresolutionof disputesin cases like the instant one, by observing as under:- Crl. M.C. No. 2954/2013 Page2 Crl.M.C.No. 2955/2013 "61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest ofjustice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminalproceedings would tantamount to abuse ofprocess of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends ofjustice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within itsjurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings." In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate that proceedings arising out of FIRs in question be brought to an end to enable the parties to resume cordial relations amongst them. Consequently, FIR No. 144/2013, under Sections 308/427/ 506/34 of the IPG (in Grl. M.G. No. 2954/2013) and cross FIR No. 143/2003, under Sections 308/452/34 of the IPG (in Grl. M.G. No. 2955/2013), registered at Police Station Sector -23 Dwarka, Delhi and proceedings emanating there-from are quashed qua petitioner-accused persons subject to cost of ?30,000 {to be equally shared by accused of these two FIRs) with the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within a week. Both the above captioned petitions are disposed of in aforesaid terms. Dasti. JULY 30, 2013 r (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE Crl. M.C. No.2954/2013 Page 3 Crl. M.C. No. 2955/2013 ^ . - , • r2 $-27 & 28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2954/2013 VIKRANT@VICKY@ GOLU&ANR Petitioner Through: Mr.VarunKumar,Advocate versus STATE & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr.MukeshGupta,Additional PublicProsecutorforrespondent No.l-State + CRL.M.C. 2955/2013 PRADEEP KUMAR & ORS Petitioner Through: Mr. Atul Bhandu, Advocate versus STATE & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional PublicProsecutorforrespondent No.l-State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER % 11.09.2013 Crl.M.A. No.13643/2013 (u/S 482 Cr.P.C.^ in CrI.M.C. No.2954/2013 Crl.M.A. No.13644/2013 (u/S 482 Cr.P.C.) in Crl.M.C.No.2955/2013 Modificationoforderof30*^ July, 2013 ofthis Courtis soughtby this application, whereby FIR No. 144/2013, under Sections CrI. M.C.No.2954/2013 Page 1 Crl M.C.No.2955/2013 308/427/506/34of the IPG (Crl. M.C. No.2954/2013)and FIR No. 143/2011,underSections308/452/34(in Crl. M.C. No.2955/2013)"both registeredat policestationSector-23Dwarka,Delhiwerequashed. Upon notice, learnedAdditionalPublicProsecutorfor respondent-State submitsthat the mistakeis innocuousone and this applicationcan be allowed. In the light ofabove, it is directedthat in the order of30"^ July, 2013, FIRNo. 143/2003 bereadasFIRNo. 143/2013.It is also dkected that in paragraphNo.4 of the aforesaidorder, PradeepKumar, Satish KumarandSurenderKumar be readas accusedin FIRNo. 143/2013(in Crl. M.C. No.2954/2013)and Vikrant@ Vickey be read as accused in FIR No. 144/2013(in Crl. M.C. No. 2955/2013)md Lakhmi Chandbe read as the complainantof this FIR, With aforesaidmodificationin the order of 30^ July, 2013, this application is disposed of. ••9r SEPTEMBER 11,2013 r (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE Crl M.C. No.2954/2013 Crl. M.C No.2955/2013

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + + % CRL.M.C. 2954/2013 VIKRANT @ VICKY @ GOLU & ANR Petitioners Through: Mr. Varun Kumar, Advocate versus STATE & ORS. Through: Respondents Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l- State with SI Samay Kumar Mr. Atul Bhandu, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 4 CRL.M.C. 2955/2013 PRADEEP KUMAR & ORS Petitioners Through: Mr. Atul Bhandu, Advocate versus STATE & ANR. Through: Respondents Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l- State with SI Samay Kumar Mr. Varun Kumar, Advocate for respondents No. 2 & 3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR