Mahipal Singh & Ors v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr

ORDER o/o

22.11.2011 CH.M.A.No, 18226/2011

¶1This is an applicationseeking exemptionfrom filing the certified copies of annexures.

¶2Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CrS.M.C.No. 3846/2011

¶1This is a petition u/S 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR no.16/2008, u/S 452/506/323 IPG r/w Sec. 27/30/54/59 of the Arms Act in respect of which the charge sheet is pending in the competent Court.

¶2It has been contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners have settled the matter with the respondent no.2/complainant as they are closely related and 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. r therefore, no useful purpose would be served by going ahead with the complaint. The petition is supported by the affidavitof all the five petitionerswho are identifiedby their counsel.

¶3The respondentno.2 is present in Court and duly identified by his counsel. The learned APP is present in response to an advance copy having been served on the State.

¶4The complainant has stated that he has no objection to the quashing of the aforesaid FIR and the consequentproceedings which are pending beforethe competentCourt as he has already arrived at a compromise with the petitioners and has no grievance against them.

¶5I have consideredthe submissionsmade by the learned counsel for the partiesand perused the record. Since the dispute in the instant case happens to be essentially private in nature on account of lending of certain money, I feel that as the parties have arrived at a settlement, no useful purposewould be served by keeping the aforesaid FIR and the consequent proceedings pending. Accordingly,the petitionersand the respondentno.2 are permitted to compound the offence as a consequence of which FIR no.16/2008, u/S 452/506/323 IPC r/w Section 27/30/54/59 of the Arms Act and all the attendant proceedings which are pending beforethe Trial Court shall stand quashed. V r

¶7Needless to say since FIR was registered in the year 2008 and it resulted in wastage of time of the police as well as that of the Court in investigating and then conducting the trial of the petitioners,therefore, the petitionersdeserve to be put to terms. Accordingly,all the 5 petitionersare directedto deposit costs of ^30,000/- each. Costs shall be deposited in the Lawyer's Welfare Fund and the original receipts of the same shall be produced before the Trial Court. Petition stands disposed of.

¶8Dasti. NOVEMBER 22, 2011 RN V.K. SHALI,3

r * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRLM.C. 3846/2011 MAHIPAL SINGH & ORS. Petitioners Through l^lr.RameshGupta, Sr.Adv. with Mr.B.Sharmat,Adv. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI &ANR. Respondents Through Ms.RItu Gauba, APR Mr.Parkash Singh, Adv. for the complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI