Avtar Singh and Others vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Others

A.K. Pathak, J—Petition No. 1 is friend of petition No. 2 Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are neighbors of petitioners. FIR has been lodged on the statement of respondent No. 2. It is alleged therein that car of Vaibhav Collided with the car of respondent No. 2 which resulted into a verbal altercation between them on 10th April 2013. On 12th April, 2013, at about 8 p.m. respondent No. 2 was standing near the dispensary of D-Block along with respondent Nos. 3 and 4 when petitioners came there in a car and started abusing them. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 took out a weapon from his pocket and fired towards them. No Injuries have been sustained by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 as per the MLCs, inasmuch as, as per the MLCs history of assault has been mentioned "physical assault" are not the firing.

Petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 submit that they have now amicably settled their disputes being neighbors and that they want to maintain relations in future. Terms of settlement have been recorded in the Compromise Deed dated 21st March, 2015.

Petitioners and respondent No. 2 to 4 are present in court today along with their counsel and state that they have no objection in case FIR is quashed in view of the settlement. Learned Additional standing counsel submits that investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed but case has yet not been committed to the Sessions Court.

In Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) AIRSCW 2065 : (2014) CriLJ 2436 : (2014) 4 JT 573 : (2014) 4 SCALE 195 : (2014) 6 SCC 466 , Supreme Court has held that FIR under Section 307 IPC can be quashed in view of the compromise arrived at between the accused and complainant. It has been further observed that if the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence when the matter is will under investigation, the High Court may be somewhat liberal in accepting the settlement and quashing the proceeding/investigation. Before framing of charges also High Court may quash the FIR keeping in mind the nature of injuries and adverting circumstances.

Since petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are known to each other being neighbors and want to maintain harmonious relation, inasmuch as complainant party has not sustained any injury, in my view, no fruitful, purpose would be served in keeping the present FIR pending. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, FIR No. 111/2013 under Sections 307/34 IPC registered at police station Ashok Vihar and the consequent proceeding emanating there from are quashed, subject to cost of Rs. 50.000/- each to be deposited with the Prime Minister''s Relief Fund within two weeks Receipts be fling in the Registry and copies thereof be given to the Investigation Officer. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.