19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRLM.C. 3883/2010 JAGDISH PRASAD DUBEY & ORS Petitioners Tinrough IMr.R.S.I^ishra, Advocate witli Petitioners in person versus STATE &ANR Respondents Through Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for R-1. i^r.Suresh Bharti, Advocate for R-2 with R-2 in person CORAIvi: HON'BLE |V|S. JUSTICE Hli^IA KOHLI ORDER % 20.12.2010 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.76/2010, lodged by respondent No.2/connplainant, against the petitioners under Sections 452/448/506/380/323/34 IPC registered with PS Palam Village. Respondent No.2/complainant is the sister-in- law of Sh. Ranjyoti Kunnar, complainant in FIR No.71/2010, subject matter of CrLl^iC No.3881/2010, which has been allowed and the FIR quashed. 2. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.2 was inducted as a tenant by petitioner No.l/landlord CRL.M.C. 3883/2010 Page No.l of 4 Signing Date:05.08.2024 16:58:50 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 a V.3, in a part of the premises owned by hinn bearing No.RZ-25C/3, Gali No.31-32, Indra Park, in April 2007. It is the case of the petitioners that disputes and differences arose between the parties on account of the fact that respondent No.2/connplainant stopped paying the rent of the tenanted premises to petitioner No.l. On the date of the incident, i.e., on 28.3.2010, heated words were exchanged between the parties, which resulted in physical assault on respondent No.2/complainant by the petitioners. 3. Counsel for the petitioners states that on 7.9.2010, during the hearing of an anticipatory bail application filed by respondent No.2/compIainant and her other family members, in respect of a cross FIR lodged by the petitioners, this Court directed the parties to explore the possibility of arriving at a negotiated settlement. Pursuant the same, the parties appeared before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and arrived at a settlement, as recorded in the Report dated 15.9.2010 submitted by the learned Mediator. 4. It is submitted by the counsels for the parties that both the parties have resolved their inter se disputes and respondent No.2/complainant is stated to have vacated the tenanted premises. CRL.M.C. 3883/2010 PageNo.2of4 V 3 Both the parties have also agreed to withdraw all the complaints filed against each other. 5. [Respondent No.2/compIainant is present in court and is duly represented by her counsel. She confirms the fact that she has arrived at the aforesaid settlement of her own free will and volition and without any undue influence or coercion from any quarter. She further confirms that she has signed the Settlement Report dated 15.9.2010(Annexure B) as placed on record and that she has vacated the premises and further, that she is left with no other pending dispute with the petitioners. 6. Learned APR for the State submits that the matter is at the stage of investigation. However, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, he has no objection to the prayer made in the present petition being allowed. • 7. This Court has heard the counsels for the parties. In view of the submission made by respondent No.2/complainant and in. view of the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement of their own free will and volition and without any undue influence or coercion from any quarter, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding further with the aforesaid FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom. CRL.IVI.C. 3883/2010 Page No.3 of 4 8. Accordingly, the prayer made in the petition is allowed. FIR No.76/2010, lodged by respondent No.2/complainant with Police Station: Palam Village, and all proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 9. The petition is disposed of. File be consigned to the record room. HIIVIA KOHLI,J DECEMBER 20, 2010 mk 1 4 CRL.M.C. 3883/2010 Page No.4 of 4