> { 28. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2633/2010 SANDEEP Petitioner Through: l^ls. Jyoti Gupta, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus STATE &ANR Respondents Through: Mrs. S. Kohii, APP for the State |vir. Pawan Kumar, Advocate with respondent No.2 in person. CORAI^: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HII^IA KOHLI ORDER o/o 18.08.2010 1. The present petitionis filed by the petitionerunder Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.477/2007, lodged by the respondent No.2/complainantunder Section 324 IPC, registered with Police Station: Vasant Kunj and all the proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner as also respondent No.2/complainantreside in the same village and on 05.07.2007, on account of a heated exchange of words on a minor issue, an altercationtook place between the parties, as a result of which, respondentNo.2/complainantsustained some injuries,and he CRL.M.C.2633/2010 ^ ^ 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 lodged the aforesaid FIR against the petitioner. However, subsequently, the parties sorted out the inter se dispute with the intervention of the neighbours and local residents. A compromise was arrived at between the parties and a Compromise Deed was executed on 18.05.2010 (Page 10 to 12 of the petition). The said Compromise Deed is duly signed by both the parties. It is confirmed by the parties, who are present in Court, that they have resolved all their inter se disputes. Respondent No.2/complainant states that he does not wish any further action to be taken on the pending FIR. 3. Learned APP for the State submits that after the investigation was carried out, a charge-sheet has been filed in the Court. However, she submits that having regard to the fact that the petitioner as also respondent No.2/complainantare young persons and do not have any past criminal record, she does not oppose the prayer made in the application. 4. This Court has heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record, the submissions made by the parties have also been considered. In view of the statement made by the respondent No.2/complainant and considering the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement of their own free will and volition and without CRL.M.C.2633/2010 P^ge 2 of 3 o any undue influence or coercion from any quarters, no useful purpose will be served byproceeding further with the aforesaid FIR and the proceedings arising out therefrom. 5. Accordingly, the prayer made in the petition is allowed. FIR No.477/2007 lodged by the respondent No.2/complainant with Police Station: Vasant Kunj, and all the proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed. 6. The petition is disposed of. File be consigned to the record room. HIMA KOHLI,J AUGUST 18, 2010 rkb CRL.M.C.2633/2010 3 of 3