Crl.MC 366/2010 Page 1 of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl.M.C. No. 366/2010 Decided on 16.07.2010 IN THE MATTER OF : NARESH YADAV & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj and Mr.Parvesh Chaudhary, Advocates along with Petitioners in person versus STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. M.N.Dudeja, APP for State Mr.Bhawani Shankar Sharma, Advocate for R-2 along with R-2 in person. CORAM * HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest? HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.656/2006 under Sections 308/341/34 IPC registered with PS Anand Vihar, Delhi lodged by the complainant, respondent No.2. 2. It is stated in the petition that the petitioners were labourers who used to work in a private limited company at Patparganj where the respondent No.2 was employed to the post of Supervisor. On 16.12.2006, there was a heated exchange of words between them and the respondent No.2 as a result of which, the parties in a fit of anger, exchanged blows and Crl.MC 366/2010 Page 2 of 2 also inflicted some injuries on each other. This resulted in filing of the aforesaid FIR. It is now stated that though a charge sheet was filed in the present case which is pending before the learned ASJ, Karkardoom Court and in which the respondent No.2 has been examined, but during the course of the trial, with the intervention of colleagues of the petitioners and the respondent No.2 and the other employees of the aforesaid company where the parties were working, they have voluntarily arrived at a settlement, in terms of which it has been decided by the respondent No.2 not to pursue the aforesaid FIR against the petitioners. 3. The parties are present in the court. It is confirmed by the respondent No.2 that he has arrived at a settlement with the petitioners and he does not wish to pursue the present FIR any further. Learned APP does not seriously oppose the prayer made in the present petition. Parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of their mutual settlement. However in view of the fact that the legal machinery has been set into motion by the parties, who now seek quashing of the FIR, the petitioners are directed to pay some costs which is expected to act as a deterrent in the future. In these circumstances, while allowing the present petition and quashing FIR No.656/2006 and the proceedings arising therefrom, each of the petitioners shall deposit costs of Rs.5,000/- with the Juvenile Justice Board against receipt, within one week. 4. The petition is disposed of. File be consigned to the record room. (HIMA KOHLI) JULY 16, 2010 JUDGE mk