IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

SUBJECT: SECTION 482 CR.P.C

Crl.M.C.No. 2897 of 2007

Judgment reserved on: 6th December, 2007

Judgment delivered on: 14th January, 2008

1.Chander Mohan S/o Late Sh. Kundan Lal R/o WZ-251-E, Ground Floor, Gali No.I, Virender Nagar New Delhi-110058.

2.Vinod Kumar S/o late Sh. Harbans Lal Banga R/o J-9/15, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.

3.Harpal Singh S/o Sh. Gurmukh Singh R/o 554, Four Storey, Tagore Garden, New Delhi-110027.

4.Vinod @ Pilot S/o Sh. Vishamber Singh R/o WZ-61, Shadi Khampur, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008 .... Petitioners Through: Mr.Ramesh Gupta with Mr. Sumit Arora and Mr. Ankur Singhal, Advs.

Vs.

1.The State (NCT of Delhi)

2.Dive Nikhil Kundra s/o Ravinder Nath, R/o J-8/75, 76, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.

3.Davinder Nath Kundra S/o Sh. Dwarka Nath Kundra R/o J-8/75-76, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.

4.Ravinder Nath Kundra S/o Sh.Dwarka Nath Kundra R/o J-8/75-76, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.

5.Virender Nath Kundra S/o Sh.Dwarka Nath Kundra R/o J-8/75-76, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi...... Respondents Through: Mr.Navin Sharma, Adv. Mr. J.C. Mahindera, Adv. for R-2 to 5.

V.B. GUPTA, J.

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 CrPCA seeking quashing of the FIR No. 485/2007 registered at PS Rajouri Garden under Section 323/308/325/34 IPC.

2. Brief facts of this case are that the complainant, Dive Nikhil Kundra who is respondent No.2 in this case, is a resident of Rajouri Garden. On 28th June, 2007, he wanted to park his car in front of house No. J-9/15, Rajouri Garden but the Guard present there objected to. In spite of that, the complainant parked his car and after he came back, he found that his car was having dent on its back door. One person named Piolot, had put the dent on his car and he again hit his car with the bricks and started beating the complainant. In the meanwhile, people gathered there and the complainant telephoned and his father and other relatives came. That Piolot also called some persons. One of them, was having a sword while, another one was having a rod in his hand and two other persons including the owner of the house in front of whose house the car was parked, were having bricks in their hands and they started beating the complainant and his family members and in this process complainant and his family members sustained injuries and thus the present case was registered.

3. Now in the present petition, it has been stated by the petitioners that due to the intervention of the common friends and relatives, both the parties have settled their disputes and have decided to live with peace and harmony and respondent No.2 does not want to proceed with the present case and as such the FIR in question should be quashed.

4. On behalf of the State, it has been contended by learned counsel that the accused persons were armed with swords, rod and bricks and they have caused injuries to various persons and keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, no case is made out for quashing of the FIR.

5. In the present case, admittedly, a quarrel has taken place spontaneously on the parking of a car in front of house of one of the petitioners by the complainant. No mens rea is involved and the incident occurred at the spurr of the moment and there was no earlier planning on behalf of any of the accused persons, to cause injuries to any of the victims.

6. All the injured persons have filed their affidavits stating that due to intervention of common friends and well wishers, they have settled the matter with the petitioners and they do not want to proceed with the FIR and they have entered into a compromise without any fair or pressure.

7. Admittedly, the complainant and the owner of the house in front of whom the complainant had parked his car, are resident of the same locality. So, in order to have peace and harmony between the parties, it is a fit case where this Court in its inherent power should grant permission for quashing of the FIR.

8. Keeping in view, the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No. 485/2007 under Sec. 323/308/325/34 IPC PS Rajouri Garden is hereby quashed, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall pay Rs.15,000/- as costs of the proceedings. Costs of the proceedings shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee with a period of one month from today.

9. List on 18th February, 2008 for compliance.

Sd./- January 14, 2008 V.B.GUPTA, J.