The Court quashed two cross FIR cases arising from the same transaction where complainants had amicably settled their complaints. The parties are neighbours living in the same locality, and continuing the proceedings serves no useful purpose.
FIR No. 1781/2010 and FTR No. 358/2010, and all proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data i s as p er the physical file and no page is missing.
t't
)
cross cases by both the parties against each other. Both these cases arise out of the same transaction. Petitioners and respondents are present in person. Petitioners of both the petitions have been identified by the lo. lt is stated that complainants have compromised and settled their respective complaint against each other amicably and out of their own free will. All the parties are neighbour and live in the same locality.
In view of the fact that parties have compromiseftheir respective i complaints, they are neighour and live in the same locality, no useful purpose will be servg(by continuing with the FIR cases against each other. Hence, FIR No. L7812010, p.S. Mehrauli U/s 4271323134L15061354134 IPC and FtR No. 358/2010, p.S. Mehrauti U/s 32314521506135415091147 lL48lI4gl34 IPC and all proceedings arisihg there from are hereby quashed.
The petitions stand disposed of.
NOVEMBER LL,?OLL awanish
M.L. MEHTA,J
',
2 issues framed by the court
Whether FIR cases arising from a compromised transaction between neighbouring parties should be continued.
Whether proceedings under Sections 427, 342, 323, 452, 148, 448, 134 IPC should be quashed upon settlement.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioners
Respondents
M.L. Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
