SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs, among others:

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the private respondents, perused the documents brought on record and considered the grounds taken up in the writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the both the parties stated that the parties have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. Injured Vipul is minor. His father Mangeram (respondent no. 3) who is lodgeder of the FIR/complainant, is present is present in person, duly identified by his counsel Mr. B. M. Pingal, Advocate. He says that he has no grievance left against the writ petitioner and he is not interested in prosecuting the petitioner, inasmuch as, the dispute has been settled amicably between the parties with the intervention of some elderly persons of the society. In other words, respondent no. 3 (father of the minor injured) has exonerated the present petitioner. Petitioner Sunil Kumar is also present in person duly identified by his counsel Mr. Vivek Shukla, Advocate.