LALIT KUMAR Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of both the parties, these two petitions are taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order as the parties are same and both the petitions pertain to one incident. Subject matter of above -captioned two petitions is the incident of 6th September, 2009 pertaining to a dispute between the parties which took place on a trivial issue i.e. children urinating in the nalli (open drain) and the incident took an ugly turn leading into filing of a complaint (filed by respondents of Crl.M.C.No.1556/2014) under Section 307 IPC/323/341/506/34 / 120B IPC and the cross version on which FIR No.166/2009 under Section 308/452/323/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Jaipur, Delhi against petitioners in Crl.M.C.No.1160/2014. Quashing of aforesaid FIR case and complaint case is sought on the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 7th February, 2014. Lalit Kumar, Ravinder and Deepak, present in Court, are the complainant -party of the complaint case and are duly represented by their counsel. In above -captioned first petition, complainant -party/respondents No.2 to 5 i.e. Raja Ram Indoria, Yasoda, Ajit and Ajay are present in person and identified to be so by Head Constable Rajnish, on the basis of identity proofs shown by them.

(2.) COMPLAINANT -party of the aforesaid FIR case and the complaint case, present in the Court submit that incident in question happened due to misunderstanding between the parties, which now stands cleared and both the sides affirm the contents of aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding and their respective affidavits and submit that to restore cordiality among the parties the proceedings arising out of FIR and complaint case be brought to an end.

(3.) LEARNED Additional Public Prosecutor points out that complainant -Lalit Kumar, present in the Court, had suffered simple injury on his head which was given by a danda blow and so cognizance of complaint case under Section 307/34 IPC was taken. Learned counsel for complainant has placed reliance upon Apex Court decision in Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr., 2014 6 SCC 466 to highlight the parameters, which govern quashing of FIR under Section 307/34 IPC, which are as under: - In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: