IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Crl.M.C.No. 1449/2009 Date of decision: 15th July, 2009. Smt. Anita & Ors. ... Petitioner through: Mr. R.K. Kashyap, Adv. for petitioner with petitioners in person VERSUS State & Ors. ....Respondents through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for the state with SI Pratap Singh from PS Nangloi Mr. G.D. Sharma, Av. For the respondent no. 2 with respondent no. 2 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL 1.Whether reporters of local papers 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? GITA MITTAL, J(Oral) 1. This petition has been filed under the provisions of Section 482 of the CrPC praying for quashing of the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 80/05 registered by the police station Nangloi u/s 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant Ms. Kalpana is arrayed as respondent no. 2. She is personally present in court alongwith counsel. The investigating officer SI Pratap Singh has identified the complainant and the petitioners who are the accused persons in the said case. - 2 - 2. The petitioners have stated that the parties are neighbours and the matter arose out of a misunderstanding between them. The petitioner no. 3 was a juvenile at the time of occurrence. In order to restore cordiality in the relations between the parties, they have mutually settled all disputes. 3. It is stated by the complainant, respondent no. 2 before this court that she has filed an affidavit on record wherein it is deposed that it is her desire not to proceed with the prosecution of the criminal case and that she has settled the matter after fully understanding the impact of the same. The respondent no. 2 has been questioned in court and she submits that the matter may be compounded. The statements of the respondent no. 2 to this effect appears to be voluntary. 4. On a consideration of the matter, it would appear that the complaint arose out of disputes between neighbours which they have mutually resolved. The disputes were of a private nature. The respondent no. 2 has made a prayer to this court to permit the compounding of the case. 5. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, it would appear to be in the interests of justice to permit the compounding of the case and the disputes which are of a private nature. The parties - 3 - have stated that they be permitted to co-exist in a spirit of neighbourliness. In view of the statement of the respondent no. 2 who does not wish to prosecute the case, it will be an exercise in futility to continue the prosecution. Accordingly, it is directed that all proceedings arising out of FIR No. 80/05 registered by the police station Nangloi u/s 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code in the case entitled State v. Anita & Ors. which are currently stated to be pending in the court of Sh. Gaurav Rao, MM, Delhi and any other proceedings arising out of the FIR shall stand quashed. This petition is allowed in the above terms. Dasti July 15, 2009 Gita Mittal, J. kr