5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRLM.C. 3450/2010 BHASKAR Petitioner Through: Mr.Rakesh Makhija, Advocate. Petitioner in person. versus STATE 81ANR Respondent Through: IMr.Navin Sharma, APP for the State. Complainant in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI ORDER % 24.11.2010 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.66/2010, lodged by respondents No.2 against the petitioners under Sections 323/326/34 IPC, registered with Police Station Prasad Nagar, Delhi. 2. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a neighbour of respondent No.2/complainant. On the date of incident i.e. on 03.05.2010, one Praveen exchanged hot words and fist cuffs with the brother of the complainant, Ravi and thereafter tried to stab him with a knife which resulted in an injury to the brother of complainant. As per the complainant, the petitioner herein is stated to have accompanied Praveen along with 2-3 other persons. CRL.M.C. 3450/2010 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 3. Counsel for the petitioner states that as the parties are neighbours, with the interventions of well-wishers and friends, they have now arrived at a settlement, as recorded in the MOU dated 19.10.2010. It is stated that in terms of the settlement, respondent No.2/complainant has agreed not to contest the present petition. 4. The complainant is present in Court and is identified by the 10. He confirms having arrived at the aforesaid settlement with the petitioner. He submits that the aforesaid settlement has been arrived at of his own free will and volition and without any undue influence or ^ coercion from any quarter whatsoever and that he has no objection if the FIR is quashed qua the petitioner. 5. Learned APP states that in view of the fact that parties have arrived at a settlement, he has no objection to the present FIR being quashed qua the petitioner. He however, submits that in view of the fact that it was on account of the petitioner that the legal machinery was put into motion, which resulted in an incurring of unnecessary expenditure and wastage of court's time, it is a fit case, where costs must be imposed on the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in view of the aforesaid settlement arrived at between the parties. FIR No.66/2010, lodged by respondent No.2 against the petitioner under Sections 323/326/34 CRL.M.C. 3450/2010 Page 2 of 3 IPG, registered with Police Station Prasad Nagar, Delhi and all proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner are quashed, subjectto the conditionthat the petitionershall pay costs of ?5,000/-, which shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committeewithin four weeks, while furnishingproofof paymentto the learned APP for the State within the same period. 7. The petition is disposed of. File be consigned to the record room. HIMA KOHLI, J NOVEMBER 24, 2010 . mr CRL.M.C. 3450/2010 Page 3 of 3