32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2628/2010 GAURAV CHOPRA & ORS Petitioners Through i^lr.Saurabh Tyagi, Advocate with Petitioners No.l &. 2 in person versus STATE &ANR Respondents Through Mrs.Santosh Kohli, APP for R-1. Mr.R.K.Wadhwa, Advocate for R-2/ Complainant, along with R-2/Compiainant in person CORAIVI: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI ORDER % 17.08.2010 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.909/1999, lodged by respondent No.2/complainant against the petitioners under Sections 452/354/323/506/34 IPC, registered with PS Rohini. 2. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioners that the parties are known to each other as the mother of the petitioner No.l runs a beauty parlour in Rohini, where the respondent No.2/complainant also has a beauty parlour. Due to some misunderstanding, an altercation took place between the petitioners and the respondent No.2/complainant on 26.12.1999, as a result of which the aforesaid CRL.M.C. 2628/2010 Page 1 of 3 \ 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 FIR came to be lodged by the respondentNo.2/complainantagainst the petitioners. After the poiice carried out investigations,a charge sheetwas filed in the courtof the learned i^lM, Rohini Court, Delhi and now the matteris statedto be at the stage of recordingof evidenceof the prosecution witnesses. 3. In the meantime,the parties state that they have arrived at a settlement,as recorded in the ivjemorandumof Understandingdated 3.8.2010(pages19 &20 of the paper book). The same is duly signed by the petitionersand the respondentNo.2/complainant,wherein both the parties have stated that they have sorted out their mutual disputes. The respondentNo.2/complainant,who is present in Court, states that she does not wish that any further action be taken on the complaint lodged by her. 4. Learned APP for the State submits that the State has no objection to the prayer made in the petition being allowed. However, she submits that in view of the fact that the petitioners have put into motion the legal machinery of the State, which has resulted in incurring of unnecessary expenditure and wastage of time, they be put to terms for seeking the relief in the present petition. 5. This Court has heard counsels for the parties. In view of the submission made on .behalf of the respondent No.2/complainant and in CRL.M.C. 2628/2010 Page 2 of 3 view of tine fact tliat the parties have arrived at a settlement of their own free will and volition and without any undue influence or coercion from any quarters, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding further with the aforesaid FIR and the proceedings arising out therefrom. 6. The petition is allowed in view of the aforesaid settlement arrived at between the parties. FIR No.909/1999 and all proceedings arising out therefrom stand quashed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- each by the petitioners, out of which Rs.10,000/- shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Advocates'Library Fund and the remaining sum of Rs.10,000/- shall be deposited with the Delhi Legal Services Authority, within a period of one week. Copy of proof of deposit of the aforesaid costs shall be furnished to the learned APP for the State within one week thereafter. The petition is disposed of. File be consigned to the record room. AUGUST 17, 2010 mk HIMA KOHLI,J CRL.M.C. 2628/2010 Page 3 of 3