\ $-21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRLM.C. 2290/2011 V K DIWAN & ORS Petitioner Tlirough : i^lr. K.P. Singli, Adv. versus STATE & ORS Respondent Through : ivir. jVj.P. Singh, APP for State along with Inspector Rakesh Kumar, Spl. Branch. Mr. Gagan Preet, counsel for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT ORDER % 22.07.2011 CRL. M.A. 8413/2011 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL. M.A. 8414/2011(Delav) For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay in filing the petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of. CRL. M.C. 2290/2011 1 An FIR No. 470/2004 was registered against the petitioners under Sections 468/471/120B/384/193 IPC at P.S. Sabzi Mandi, Delhi. 2 Learned APP for state Submits that the charge sheet has been filed and the order on charge is yet to be framed. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a compromise has already been taken place vide settlement dated 06.03.2010 and since both the parties i.e. the Signing Date:21.08.2024 17:03:48 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. Signature Not Verified respondent No. 2 and petitioners are in relation to each other, therefore, due to the intervention of the family members and relatives and common friends, they have settled the disputes among each other and respondent No. 2 does not want to pursue the case further. 4 Mr. Sandeep Diwan, respondent No. 2 is personally present in the court today, who is identified by Inspector Rakesh Kumar/10 of the case. 5 Respondent No. 2 submits that he does not want to pursue the case further in lieu of settlement arrived at between the parties and he has no objection, if the aforesaid FIR is quashed. 6 In the above mentioned facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, I quash the FIR No. .470/2004 and the proceedings emanating therefrom. 7 CrI. M.C. 2290/2011 is allowed and disposed of in the above terms. 8 Since, the government machinery is being used and the precious time of court is also put in, I deem if fit to impose cost on the parties as under:- 9 I defer imposing cost on petitioner No. 1, who is an old and ailing person. On being asked, petitioner No. 2 states that he is a Document Writer at Janakpuri, District Centre. He submits that he earns ^8,000-10,000/- per month. Keeping his financial condition in view, I impose a cost of ?2,000/- on him to be deposited in Advocates Welfare Fund, Bar Council of Delhi. The other petitioners namely Tuisi Ram and Lala Ram are 4 exempted from paying cost as they are not the men of means and worl<ing as labourer and electrician respectively. CRL. M.A. 8412/2011(Stav) Since, the Crl. M.C. 2290/2011 is allowed, this application is disposed of being infructuous. tsf^ SURESH KAITJ JULY 22, 2011 j