Please help...order regarding cost of quashing
ASHISH JAIN
(Querist) 22 February 2013
This query is : Resolved
Dear experts,
I have one query related to quashing of cross FIRs.
The concerned order of High court is as follows for your reference.
In the last para, while imposing cost to the parties, the High court has mentioned name of two persons with cost to be paid by them and after that HC has written cost of Rs.10,000 to be beared by 'OTHERS'.
Can anyone clear that,
1. Who can come within the purview of the term 'OTHERS'?
Is it the remaining members of 'Mr. A & others' or shall it include 'Mr. B and others' also? as the case is strongly in favor of 'Mr. B and others'.
2. Can 'Mr. B & others' sit aside not having paid the cost of Rs.10,000/- towards the order, considering the interpretation in their favor.
If yes, then on what basis?
Please clarify the issue. Order is as follows for your kind perusal:
""Mr.A and ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. X, Adv.
versus
STATE andORS. ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Y, APP for the State
Mr. B and ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Z, Adv.
versus
STATE andORS. ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Y, APP for the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE XYZ
O R D E R
By these two petitions filed by the petitioners, they seek quashing of cross-FIRs registered against each other, bearing FIR Nos 1 and FIR NO. 2 and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom.
Crl. No. 3 has been filed by the petitioners who are accused in FIR No. 1, the said FIR was registered against them under Sections 323/341/506/34 IPC at Police Station, Delhi. Crl. No. 4 has been filed by the petitioners who are accused in FIR No. 2, the said FIR was registered against
them under Sections 307/201/34 IPC with Police Station , Delhi
Both the parties are present in Court along with their respective counsels. Counsel appearing for the parties submits that a sudden quarrel had taken place between both the parties on 1.1.2008, as a
result of which, both the parties have received simple injuries and cross FIRs were registered by the Police Station, Delhi under various Sections of the IPC against each other.
Counsel also submits that these parties are close relatives and they are carrying on their respective business in the same area. Counsel also submits that in order to avoid any kind of problems or animosity in
future, these parties have compromised the matter and with the said compromise, have arrived at a settlement between them. Now, they do not wish to proceed against each other in the criminal proceedings.
Counsel appearing for the parties now pray that considering that the said settlement has been arrived at between the parties and the fact that they are carrying on their respective business in the same area and also because they are related to each other, the aforementioned FIRs and the criminal proceedings arising thereof be quashed.
The quashing of these FIRs has been strongly opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the State. Mr. Navin Sharma, learned APP for the State submits that in the said scuffle, the assailants namely Mr. C and Mr. D (sons of Mr. A) have used scissor in causing serious injuries to the rival groups on the vital parts of their body. Counsel however submits that in the
said quarrel, the tooth of one of the assailants was also broken, while the other victim has received simple injuries.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
FIR NO. 1 has been registered against the accused persons under Sections 307/201/34 IPC. Ordinarily, in cases, where grave and
serious offences are involved, the FIR should not be quashed, but however, considering the facts in the present cases, where the victims have only received simple injuries and that too on the trifling parts of their body, bearing no such austere consequences and also taking into consideration the fact that both the parties are carrying on their business in the same area and have close relationship and have taken a decision to settle the matter and to end the animosity, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served in keeping the said FIRs and the proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioners alive any further. Consequently, the FIR Nos. 1 registered under Sections 323/341/506/34 IPC and FIR No. 2 registered under Sections 307/201/34 IPC both pertaining to Police Station, Delhi, and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, subject to theleafs payment of cost of Rs. 20,000/- by Mr. C (Son of Mr. A), Rs. 20,000/- by Mr. D (Son of Mr. A) and Rs. 10,000/- by the others, to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund.
The petitions stand disposed of accordingly.""
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 23 February 2013
Others include all other parties than those 2 mentioned in name.
ASHISH JAIN
(Querist) 23 February 2013
Hello Sir,
Thanks for the reply.
Please clarify, All other parties means all parties of both the sides?
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 23 February 2013
OTHERS Of the side who has loosed the litigation.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 23 February 2013
agree with prabhakar singhji
ASHISH JAIN
(Querist) 24 February 2013
Hello experts,
Thanks for your valuable replies.
As you can see, there is difference between opinions of Mr. Raj Kumar Makkar Sir and Mr. Prabhakar Singh Sir, and the experts agreeing to both of them.
Can anyone quote the related case law or section or base of opinion to support anyone, specifically for the opinion of Mr. Prabhakar Singh Sir (THE OTHER SIDE WHO HAS LOOSED THE LITIGATION SHALL ONLY BE INCLUDED),
as including all the parties to the purview of "OTHERS' towards the payment of Rs. 10,000/- would be the last option (as per conservatism) in the hands of appelants and thus, this option would not require the expert opinion, if all parties would have to be included in that.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 24 February 2013
My answer "OTHERS Of the side who has loosed the litigation" is based on analogy that a court imposes cost on loosing party alone.In my experience it would be very strange to understand that "others" used here refers to "all the parties of both side excluding those specifically mentioned as C and D sons of A".
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 24 February 2013
lET mE TOO SEE HOW THE OTHER MEMBERS AT bAR
view it.
ASHISH JAIN
(Querist) 24 February 2013
Hello Sir,
But, it can also be possible that the court has imposed the cost on all of them, as the case has come to the conclusion after 3 years and that so with quashing and a lot of the time of court was wasted on it.
No doubt, if the strong party would have won the case, the party liable to pay all the cost would have been the one which was about to lose in this case (Mr. A & Others).
Basically, on what basis, Mr. B & Others can sit freely by not depositing the costs, as the order itself is not clear.
And, what if, court demanded it from them afterwards.
Thanks.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 24 February 2013
There is a way to these things.
When there is confusion to the interpretation of any order seeking clarification from the same court is the best way to remove all doubts.
ASHISH JAIN
(Querist) 24 February 2013
Yes, that would be the best way out.
But, still is there another way out to not to deposit the cost by Mr. B and others, by taking help of any section?
Please give the way out, if possible.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 24 February 2013
The other way out is to understand it in my way but in bonafide way not with so much discussions as being made here.I hope identity is not disclosed.Yet facts are.
ASHISH JAIN
(Querist) 24 February 2013
Is there any other opinion by anyone on this issue?
please post.
Thanks.
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 24 February 2013
contact local lawyer.
