98. * ,rl\a IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 3585/2010 and Crl.M .A. L7467-68/20t0 TAHIR & ANOTHER ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. R.D. Rana, Mr. K.M. Azad and Mr. Manish Gupta, Advocates with petitioners No.1 and 2 in person. VCTSUS . STATE & ORS ..... ResPondents Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State Respondents No.2 and 3 in Person. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI ORDER o/o 19.11.2010 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.513/2005, lodged by respondent No.2/complainant against the petitioners under Sections 452/323/506/34 IPC, registered with Police Station: Seema Puri, Delhi, 2. Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners and respondent No.2/complainant are neighbours. On the date of incident, i.e., on 28.08.2005, the petitioners came on a two wheeler scooter and ran over the tyre of the scooter on the feet of respondent No.2/complainant. When she protested at this, the petitioners followed CRL.M.C. 3585/2010 Page No.1 of 3 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 respondent No.2 and her husband, respondent No.3 into their Jhuggi and assaulted them which led to the filing of the FIR by the respondent No.2/complainant. Subsequently, with the intervention of some neighbours and well wishers, the parties have arrived at a settlement. 3. Learned APP for the State submits that. after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. He states that the petition may be allowed, but in view of the conduct of the petitioners and having regard to the fact that it was on their account that the legal machinery has been set into motion, which has resulted in incurring of { unnecessary expenditure by the State and wastage of court's time, costs may be imposed on the petitioners. 4. Looking at the conduct of the petitioners and the contents of the FIR wherein, respondent No.2/complainant has specifically stated that the petitioners ran over their two wheeler scooter on her feet and further got aggressive when she protested and assaulted respondents No.2 and 3, ideally the present petition ought not be allowed. However, having regard to the young age of the petitioners, i and the fact that they are repentant and have agreed to compensate the respondents No.2 & 3 in terms of money, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.513/2005 lodged by respondent No.2 with Police ' Station: Seema Puri, Delhi, and all proceedings arising therefrom are cRL.M.C. 3sBs/z}r} Page No.2 of 3 quashed, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall collectively pay <20,000/- as costs, out of which {10,000/- shall be paid'to respondents No.2 and 3 and {10,000/- shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. 5. The aforesaid costs shall be deposited by within two weeks, while furnishing proof of payment APP for the State within the same period. the petitioners to the learned a 6. The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending application. File be consigned to the record room. HIMA KOHLI,J NOVEM BER rkb 19, 2010 cRL.M.C. 3585/2OrO Page No.3 of 3 a