A-21 HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI Date of hearing and Order. February 08, 2010 + CrI. M.C. No. 4090/2009 % SanjeevKumarSuman ••• Petitioner Through; Mr. S.K. Suman and Mr. Pawan Jain, Advocatefor petitioner. versus State of NCT of Delhi &Another ... Respondents Through: Mr. R.N. Vats, AdditionalPublic Prosecutor for State with Sub- Inspector Dr. P.S. Bhardwaj, Police Station Kotwali. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR 2. 3. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? To be referred to Reporter or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SUNIL GAUR. I. (Oral) 1. Heard. No. 2. The incident is of 6^^ January 2006. Petitioneras well Crl. M.C. No. 4090/2009 Page 1 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified V as RespondentNO. 2were the teachersin Ramjas School No.3, ChandniChowk, Delhi.They had quarrelover use of the internet facility on the computer in the school and Petitioneris said to have bittenthe left ear of Respondent No. 2 and regarding this Incident FIR No.10/2006 under Section326 of Indian Penal Code at PoliceStationChandni Chowk was registered.The trial of this case has not yet begun. 3. Now, Petitioner- accused as well as Respondent- Complainant/firstinformantof the FIR in questionwant to maintaincordial relationsand seek quashing of the FIR in questionas the expensesfor plasticsurgeryof the leftear of RespondentNo. 2/Complainanthave been borne by the Petitioner.Affidavitto this effectof RespondentNo. 2 is on record. 4. Parties are present in person and RespondentNo. 2 has been identified by Sub-InspectorDr. P.S. Bhardwaj, InvestigatingOfficer of this case as the first informantof the FIR in question. RespondentNo. 2 states that he has pardonedthe Petitionerfor the happeningof this incident Crl.M.C.No. 4090/2009 ^ and there was some misunderstandingalso, which led to happeningof this incidentand now both the side want to bury their past and to maintaincordial relations. 5. Apex Court in case of Madan MohanAbbot V. Stateof Punjab (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 582 observed as under "We need to ennphasis that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibilityof a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law." 6. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, to maintain the cordiality between the Petitioner-accused and Respondent - injured/Complainant, it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings arising out of the Crl.M.C.No. 4090/2009 Page 3 FIR in question are put to an end. 7. Since the subject matter of the FIR in question has been mutually, amicably and finally settled between the parties, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedingsarising out of the FIR in question. Resultantly,FIR No. 10/2006 under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Chandni Chowk, and proceedings emanating therefrom, stands quashed qua the Petitioners. 8. This petition as well as pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. February 08, 2010 pkb Sunil Gaur, J. Crl. M.C. No. 4090/2009 Page4