JUDGMENT : 1. Present petition seeks quashing of FIR No. 55/2013 registered at PS Kirti Nagar under Sections 186/353/354/509/323/34 of the IPC against the two petitioners on the complaint of respondent No. 2. Proceedings continued in this Court for some time. Initially this petition as been filed seeking quashing on merits. This Court had been informed that the charge-sheet had been filed and the matter had been fixed before the concerned trial Court for framing of charges but those proceedings stood deferred in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties that the proceedings before this Court were pending. On an earlier date of hearing, on an application filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR on the ground that a compromise had been arrived at between the complainant and the petitioners the Court had deemed it fit to summon ACP Eish Singhal and his wife Smriti Singhal; also in view of the fact that they were also involved in this incident. 2. Parties are present i.e. both the petitioners, the, complainant, ACP Eish Singhal and his wife Smriti Singhal. Parties state that they have no grievance left against ode another and the complainant has no objection if the proceedings are permitted to be quashed. Submission is that that an unqualified apology has been tendered by the petitioners and although the petitioners submit that there was no intention on their part to create any nuisance yet to give a quietus to this litigation, they have now tendered an unconditional apology which has been accepted by the complainant as also by ACP. Eish Singhal and his wife Smriti Singhal who were the other persons involved in the incident. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon 2014 (4) JCC 2406 Surinder Bhardwaj v. State to support submission that in similar proceedings, which had been initiated under Sections 186/332/354/34 of the IPC, a Bench of this Court, on a compromise having being arrived at between the parties, had quashed the FIR and as such there would be no bar in quashing the present proceedings as well. 4. Noting the above factual matrix and the submissions made by the respective parties which stand confirmed by the presence of the parties who have endorsed this position, in the fitness framings, it would be appropriate if these proceedings are not allowed to continue any further. 4. Noting the above factual matrix and the submissions made by the respective parties which stand confirmed by the presence of the parties who have endorsed this position, in the fitness framings, it would be appropriate if these proceedings are not allowed to continue any further. It would be in the interest of justice as also in the larger interest of the society. 5. Learned public prosecutor at this stage submits that if at all the present FIR is permitted to be quashed, it should be subject to costs as the State machinery has been put into motion and the State has also incurred expenses. 6. Accordingly FIR No. 55/2013 registered at PS Kirti Nagar under Sections 186/353/354/509/323/34 of the IPC as also all the proceedings emanating there from are quashed subject to costs of Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited within three days by the petitioners with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. Petition disposed of.