* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(Crl.) No. 569/2010 % Date of Decision: 19th April, 2010 # SHRI ARUN KUMAR NARDA .....PETITIONER ! Through: Petitioner with his counsel Mr. Shailender Dahiya VERSUS $ THE STATE & OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS ^ Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel for the State. Respondents No. 2 & 3 with their counsel Mr. Pradeep Ahlawat. CORAM: Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL 1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) Crl.M.A. No. 4898/2010 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 569/2010 Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(Crl.) No. 569/2010 The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash FIR No. 193/2008 under Sections 288/304-A IPC got registered by respondents No. 2 & 3 with Police Station Sarup Nagar. 2. Mr. Pawan Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice of this petition on behalf of respondent No. 1 State. Respondents No. 2 & 3 are also present with their counsel Mr. Pradeep Ahlawat and they also accept notice of this petition. W.P.(Crl.) No. 569/2010 Page 1 of 2 3. With the consent of counsel for the parties, this petition has been taken up for final disposal at this stage itself. 4. The FIR in question under Sections 288/304-A IPC was got registered by respondents No. 2 & 3 on account of death of their son due to fall of mud wall while the deceased was urinating near the said wall. The dispute is stated to have been amicably settled between the parties and pursuant thereto, the petitioner has agreed to give Rupees One Lakh as compensation to respondents No. 2 & 3 for the alleged negligent death of the son of respondents No. 2 & 3, being the complainants in the case. Out of this settlement amount of Rupees One Lakh, it is stated that Rs.30,000/- stand already paid to respondents No. 2 & 3 and the balance amount of Rs.70,000/- has been paid to them by means of an account payee pay order drawn in favour of respondent No. 2. 5. The respondents No. 2 & 3, being the complainants present in Court with their counsel Mr. Pradeep Ahlawat, say that in view of settlement arrived at between the parties, they have no objection to the quashing of criminal case got registered by them vide FIR in question against the petitioner. 6. Since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, interest of justice demand for quashing of FIR in question got registered by respondents No. 2 & 3 against the petitioner. No useful purpose is going to be served by further investigation of the FIR in question got registered against the petitioner. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case stated above, this writ petition is allowed. The FIR No. 193/2008 under Sections 288/304-A IPC with Police Station Sarup Nagar is hereby quashed. APRIL 19, 2010 S.N.AGGARWAL, J 'BSR' W.P.(Crl.) No. 569/2010 Page 2 of 2