Rai Singh and Others vs State and Another

Suresh Kait, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No. 889/1997 dated 19.12.1997, a case under Sections 323/452/34 IPC, was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No. 2 at PS Samaipur Badli. Thereafter, on filing the charge-sheet, charges have been framed and now the case is pending for prosecution evidence.

It is further submitted, vide compromise deed dated 09.09.2011 between the parties, due to intervention of locality members and common friends, respondent No. 2/complainant has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR against the petitioners, therefore, he is no more interested in pursuing the case any further. In these circumstances, he prays that the instant petition may be allowed.

Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the Court and submits that he has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR, and therefore, he is no more interested to pursue the case further against the petitioner. If the FIR referred above and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed, he has no objection thereto.

Learned APP for the state, on the other hand, submits that the instant case was registered way back on 19.12.1997 and more than 14 years have been passed. In this process, government machinery pressed into and precious public time of the Court has been consumed, therefore, heavy cost be imposed on the petitioners while quashing the aforementioned FIR and the proceeding arising therefrom.

Keeping the agreement arrived between the parties, statement of respondent No. 2 / complainant, who is no more interested to pursue the case and in the interest of justice, FIR No. , 889/1997 registered at PS-Samaipur Badli and emanating proceedings thereto, are hereby quashed.

Though I find force in the submission of learned APP on costs, however, keeping in view the financial position of the petitioners and their ages, I refrain from imposing the cost upon them.

Accordingly, Crl. M.C. 228/2012 is allowed and disposed of.