l 42. * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 3835/2010 and Cri.M.A. 18392/2010 DEVENDER KUMAR KUKREJA & ANR. .. ... Petitioners Through: Mr. L.A. Vashishtha, Advocate with petitioners in person. versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .. ... Respondents CORAM: Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, AfP for the State Mr. Sunil Gautam, Advocate(for respondent No.2 and 3 with respondent No.2 in person. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI ORDER 0/o 10.12.2010 \ 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.339/2010 lodged by respondent No.3, Smt. Vidya Devi, neighbour of respondent No.2 against the petitioners under Section 288/304A/34 IPC, registered with Police Station: Kalkaji, New Delhi. 2. Counsel for the petitioners states that the FIR was lodged J on the basis of an incident, which took place on 22.07.2010. As per respondent No.3/complainant, petitioner No.1 was getting his house constructed through petitioner No.2, the contractor and in the course of the said construction activity, a heavy iron plate came crashing from CRL.M.C. 3835/2010 Page 1 of4 I ll.LL1 Ill Signing Date:03.08.2024 17:21:43 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 the fourth floor and fell on the head of the wife of respondent No.2, thus grievously injuring her. It is stated that the petitioners took the injured to the hospital for treatment but she expired on the same day, i.e., 22.07.2010. After the FIR was lodged, investigation was carried out. Thereafter, the petitio.ners approached respondent No.2, requesting him that the matter may be settled amicably. With the intervention of the neighbours and well wishers, the parties have arrived at a settlement as recorded in the Settlement Agreement, signed on 04.08.2010 (Annexure P-4). In terms of the settlement, it was agreed between the parties that petitioner No.1 would pay a sum of lacs to respondent No.2 as compensation. Out of the said amount, it was agreed that a sum of lac each would be paid to the two minor daughters of respondent No.2, by preparing two FDRs in their names. It was further agreed that the remaining sum of lacs would be retained by respondent No.2. Counsel for the petitioners states that the two FDRs of lac each as also a demand draft of · l lacs have been handed over to respondent No.2. He, therefore, submits that the FIR be quashed. 3. Respondent No.2 is present in Court and represented by his counsel. Counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 states that he is CRL.M.C. 3835/2010 Page 2 of4 lll..L ' II . 1 8. The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending application. File be consigned to the record room. DECEMBER 10, 2010 rkb CRL.M.C. 3835/2010 HIMA KOHLI,] Page 4 of4 I liL.t.l .. l · 11