32. * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 860/2011 and Cri.M.A. 3228/2011 PUSHPA RANI & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. R.M. Bagai, Advocate with petitioners No.1 to 4 in person. versus STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for the State. Respondent No.2/complainant in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI ORDER 0/o 17.03.2011 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.683/1998 lodged by respondent No.2/complainant, who was in the employment of MTNL, against the petitioners under Sections IPC registered with Police Station: Dabri, Delhi, and all proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Counsel for the petitioners states that the aforesaid FIR was lodged by respondent No.2/complainant on 28.09.1998 when as per him, he had gone to the house of the petitioners to attend to a complaint with regard to some fault in a telephone at Sagarpur and when he had reached there, petitioner No.1 and her three sons, CRL.M.C. 860/2011 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 petitioners No.2 to 4, confronted him and demanded that he should repair their telephone first. Thereafter, they abused and physically assaulted him, due to which he received injuries on his head. It is stated that after the investigation was completed and the charge-sheet was filed, the parties arrived at a settlement, as a result of which, the present petition is filed seeking quashing of the FIR. 3. Respondent No.2/complainant is present in Court and is identified by the counsel for the petitioners. He confirms the fact that he has arrived at a settlement with the petitioners of his own free will and volition and without any undue influence or coercion from any quarter and that he has no objection to the FIR being quashed. 4. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, he has no objection to the prayer made in the present petition being allowed. He, however, submits that in view of the fact that it was on account of the actions of the petitioners that the legal machinery was put into motion, which resulted in an incurring of unnecessary expenditure and wastage of time, it is a fit case, where costs must be imposed on the petitioners. 5. This Court has heard 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 CRL.M.C. 860/2011 page 2 of 3 \ will and volition and without any undue influence or from any quarter, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding further with the aforesaid FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom. 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.683/1998 lodged by respondent No.2/complainant with Police Station: Dabri, Delhi, and all proceedings ar-ising therefrom are quashed, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall collectively pay costs of out of which a sum of shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee a.nd the remaining sum of shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Advocates' Library Fund. 7. The aforesaid costs shall be deposited by the petitioners within four weeks, while furnishing proof of payment to the learned APP for the State within the same period. 8. The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending application. File be consigned to the record room. MARCH rkb CRL.M.C. 860/2011 17, 2011 HIMA KOHLI,J page 3 of 3