Upon finding that parties living in the same locality had mutually compromised and settled their respective complaints, the High Court held that no useful purpose would be served by continuing criminal proceedings. Consequently, the FIRs and all consequential proceedings were quashed with costs saved.
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.
fll*;
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 complaints, they are neighour and live in the same locality, no useful purpose will be servedby continuing with the FIR cases against each other. Hence, FIR No. L7B|2OLO, P.S. Mehrauli U/s 4271323134115061354134 IPC and FIR No. 358/2010, p.s. Mehrauti U/s 32314521506135415091i47 lL48/149134 IPC and all proceedings arising there from are hereby quashed.
The petitions stand disposed of.
NOVEMBER 1 1, 20L1 awanish
M.L. MEHTA,J
1 issue framed by the court
Whether FIR cases can be quashed upon mutual settlement between neighbouring parties.
Awanish
M.L. Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
