IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI WP (Crl.) No.1110/2009 Date of decision: 12th August, 2009 Kripal Bhardwaj & Anr. ....Petitioner through: Mr. M. Qayam-Ud-Din, Adv. for petitioners with petitioners in person. VERSUS The State & Anr. ....Respondents through: Counsel for the respondent no.2 with respondent no.2 in person. Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for the State with ASI Shiv Kumar. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? GITA MITTAL, J(Oral) * 1. A minor dispute between the petitioners on the one hand and the respondent no.2 on the other, over parking resulted in registration of FIR No.515/2007 dated 4th July, 2007 by the police station Shakarpur under Sections 452/308/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter is stated to be still at the stage of investigation. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of the proceedings arising out of the FIR on the ground that - 2 - a settlement has been arrived at with the complainant who is arrayed as respondent no.2. 3. The petitioners and the respondent no.2 are present. The petitioner no.1 has filed photocopy of his election identity card, petitioner no.2 has placed photocopy of the ration card while respondent no.2 has placed photocopy of his election card. The same have been compared with the originals produced by these persons and scrutinised by ASI Shiv Kumar from the Crime Branch of the Delhi Police who has compared their authenticity and identity. 4. It has been stated by and on behalf of the parties that they are close neighbours and have amicably resolved their disputes with the intervention of respectables and relatives. In view of the proximity in which they are residing and having business, the parties and counsel have prayed that the proceedings in the case be quashed in order to enable them to restore normalcy to their relationship. 5. Respondent no.2 has sworn an affidavit in support of the prayer made in the petition and submits that having regard to the close proximity with the petitioners in respect of residence and location of their business premises, he does not wish to prosecute the case. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the nature of disputes which appear to have arisen out of a private - 3 - dispute relating to parking of a vehicle, it would appear to be in the interest of justice if they are given an opportunity to harmonize the relations between them. The fact that they are neighbours reflects that it would also be in the society's interest that the parties are given a chance to remove the acrimony which may be existing between them. 7. However, it remains a fact that a case was registered and investigation was going on. Undoubtedly, time, effort and expenditure have been expended by the investigating agency and a burden has enured to the public exchequer towards the present case as well. The petitioners are, therefore, required to compensate the investigating agency. I am told that Delhi Police Welfare Society is looking after the welfare of the police personnel. 8. Accordingly, it is directed that subject to the petitioners depositing an amount of Rs.5,000/- each with the Delhi Police Welfare Society, DCP Provision & Line, Old Police Line (OPL), Delhi within a period of two weeks from today, further proceedings in the case arising out of FIR No.515/2007 dated 4th July, 2007 by the police station Shakarpur under Sections 452/308/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code shall stand hereby quashed. - 4 - 9. The petitioner shall furnish proof of deposit before the trial court as well as on the record of the present case immediately on deposit failing which prosecution of the case shall proceed. Let a copy of the direction with regard to the deposit be communicated to the Commissioner of Delhi Police. This petition is allowed in the above terms. Dasti. August 12, 2009 Gita Mittal, J. aa