Bhawani & Anr v. Gnct of Delhi & Anr

ORDER

09.1L2012 By this writ petitionfiled under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C.,the petitionersseek quashingof FIR bearingNo.l15/2011,underSections279/337IPC P.S. GTB Enclave,Delhi and all the proceedingsarisingtherefrom.

¶2Brieffacts leadingto filingofthis petitionai'Cthatthe petitionerNo.1 is a student of MBBS 3'^ year. On 26.11.2011,the petitionerNo.l was comingfrom Nand Nagri Chowktowardsthe GTB Chowkby car at aspeed of 30-40 Km per hour. It was eveningtime and weatherwas cloudy with V. dusty wind blowingand heavy trafficon the road. He saw acart moving on the wrong side beingpushedby aboy (petitionerNo.2 herein)and all of asuddenturnedand came in the path ofhis car. The petitionerNo.l applied brakes immediatelybut before the car could come to a halt, it hit the cart from its left side due to which the boy fell on the ground. The petitioner No.l lifted him up in his hands and startedcarryinghim to car so that he could get him immediatemedical attentionwhere he was studying as an under graduate.However,beforethe petitionerNo.l could do so, the PGR arrived at the spot and took both the petitionerNo.l and the boy to the emergencywherethe petitionerNo.2 was givenmedicaltreatment.

¶3Thereafter,FIR bearing No.115/2011 under Sections 279/338 IPG was registeredagainstthe petitionerNo.l at P.S. GTB Enclave,Delhi.

¶4During the pendencyof the proceedings,on 03.08.2012,the parties have arrived at an amicablesettlementbetweenthem. In terms of the said settlement, the petitioner No.l has paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- to the petitionerNo.2 towardscostoftreatmentofpetitionerNo.2.

¶5Learned counsel for the petitionerssubmitsthat the petitionershave amicablyresolvedtheirdisputeand in termsofthe settlement,the petitioner No.l has alreadypaid the amountof Rs.60,000/-towardscost of treatment to petitionerNo.2 and petitionerNo.2 is not leftwith any claimor grievance of any nature against the petitionerNo.l. Counsel states that since the parties have settled their disputes amicably, no useftil purpose would be served by continuanceof criminalproceedingsagainstthe petitionerNo.l. Gounselthus prays for quashingofthe FIR and all subsequentproceedings arisingout ofsaidFIRqua the petitionerNo.1.

¶6PetitionerNo.2, who is minor and is injuredin this case is presentm Court today along with his brother-in-law. It is submittedthat since the injuredis a minor,his fatherhas appointedhis brother-in-lawas attorneyto representand appearalongwiththe injured. The attorneyalso confirmsthe factum of amicable settlementwith petitionerNo.l and that injured has received a sum of Rs.60,000/- from petitioner No.l towards cost of treatment.

¶7In view of the aforesaidamicablesettlementarrived at betweenthe parties,I am ofthe consideredviewthat no usefulpurposewouldbe served by continuingthe criminal proceedingsagainst the petitionerswhich will only be afutileexerciseand wastageofprecioustime ofthe Court.

¶8Accordingly,the petition is allowed and FIR bearing No.l15/2011, under Sections 279/337 IPC P.S. GTB Enclave, Delhi and all the proceedingsarisingtherefromare herebyquashed,leavingthe partiesto bear their own costs.

¶9Order dasti. l^TIBHARANI, J NOVEMBER 09, 2012 'dc'

$-6 'i^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI I- W.P.(CRI..) 1604/2012 BIIAWANI& ANR. Petitioners Thi-ough:Ms.MadhuMukulTripathiand Mr.Ravi ShankarSharma,AdvocateswithpetitionerNo.l and Mi'.MohanYadav,brother-in-lawoffatherof petitionerNo.l and POA holder. versus STATP:&ANR Respondents Through;Ms.NidhiSharma,Advocate,proxytor Ms.RajdipaBehura,APP for State/R-1. Mr.RishabhReian,Advocatefor R-2 withR- 2/complainant in person. CORAM: HON'BLEMS. JUSTICEPRATIBHAl^NI