AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Girish Kathpalia, J
Petitioners seek quashing of case FIR No. 271/2009 of PS Sultanpuri, Delhi for offence under Section 324/34 IPC on the ground that complainant de facto (respondent no.2) and the injured (respondent no.3) have settled the disputes with the petitioners.
Learned APP accepts notice and submits that State has no serious objection because the trial is pending since the year 2009 and the complainant de facto and injured have not supported prosecution in their testimony during trial.
The respondents no.2 & 3, present with their counsel and identified by IO/SI Brahm Prakash accept notice.
I have spoken with the parties. It is submitted by respondents no.2 & 3 that towards full and final settlement of injuries caused to respondent no.3 by the petitioners, the latter have paid a compensation amount of Rs. 40,000/-. Respondent no.2, on whose complaint the FIR was registered is father of respondent no.3 who had suffered the injuries. Respondents no.2 & 3 submit that they do not wish to pursue prosecution of petitioners. Apparently, that is the reason they did not support prosecution in their testimony before the trial court.
Considering the above circumstances, I am satisfied that it would be in the interest of justice not to push the parties through trial.
Therefore, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 271/2009 of PS Sultanpuri, Delhi for offence under Section 324/34 IPC and proceedings arising out of the same are quashed. Pending application stands disposed of.