CRL.M.C.2397/2010 Page 1 of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2397/2010 Decided on 10.08.2010 IN THE MATTER OF : SANDEEP CHAUDHARY AND ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr.R.C. Pathak, Advocate with petitioners No.1 and 2 in person. versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State Mr. Sanjeev Aggarwal, respondent No.2 in person. CORAM * HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest? HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.271/2004, lodged by respondent No.2/complainant against the petitioners under Sections 452/324 read with Section 34 IPC, with Police Station: Farsh Bazar. 2. It is the case of the respondent No.2/complainant that on 01.08.2004, 4-5 persons were drinking, smoking and creating a ruckus outside his house to which, he objected, whereupon, the said persons abused respondent No.2/complainant and trespassed into his house, threatened him and gave him blows. As a result of the complaint, the police carried out the investigation pursuant to which, a charge-sheet was filed in CRL.M.C.2397/2010 Page 2 of 2 the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, which is pending at the stage of recording of evidence. It is stated that in the interregnum, with the intervention of the neighbours and well wishers, the parties have arrived at a settlement. 3. The parties are present in Court. Respondent No.2/complainant confirms that a settlement has been arrived at between him and the petitioners. He is duly identified by the IO, who is present in Court. Learned APP for the State also states that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, he has no objection to the prayer made in the present petition being allowed. 4. Having regard to the settlement arrived at between the parties, there appears no legal impediment in allowing the present petition. However, considering the fact that on account of the petitioners, the legal machinery of the State has been set into motion, which has resulted in incurring of unnecessary expenditure and wastage of time, while quashing FIR No.271/2004 registered by the respondent No.2/complainant against the petitioners and allowing the present petition, it is directed that the petitioners shall pay costs of Rs.7,500/- each to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. Needful shall be done within two weeks. Copy of proof of deposit of the aforesaid costs shall be furnished to the learned APP for the State within two weeks. 5. The petition is disposed of. File be consigned to the record room. (HIMA KOHLI) AUGUST 10, 2010 JUDGE rkb