Full Text
Translation output
Crl.M.C.No.1216/2015 Page 1 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: March 25, 2015
Date of Decision: March 25, 2015
CRL.M.C. 1216/2015 & Crl.
M.A.No.4473-74/2015
RAM AVTAR SHARMA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Karan Veer Tyagi, & Mr. Ashok Kumar Shahi, Advocates
M.A.No.4473-74/2015
RAM AVTAR SHARMA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Karan Veer Tyagi, & Mr. Ashok Kumar Shahi, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Madan Mr. Saurabh Seth, Advocate for respondents No. 2 & 3.
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Madan Mr. Saurabh Seth, Advocate for respondents No. 2 & 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 98/2013, under Sections 420/467/468/471/
120-B of the IPC, registered at police station Sagarpur, Delhi is sought on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding of of 5th June, 2014 (Annexure-P-4).
Notice.
Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and Mr. Saurabh Seth, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 2 & 3.
Mr. Navin Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
2015:DHC:2884 Crl.M.C.No.1216/2015 Page 2 respondent-State submits that investigation in this case is at a crucial stage and so, this petition is strongly opposed.
Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 submits that the settlement in terms of Memorandum of Understanding of 5th June, 2014 (Annexure-P-4) has been already acted upon and the complainant party i.e. respondents No. 2 & 3 have no objection to quashing of the FIR in question.
Attention of this Court has been drawn to the affidavits of respondents No. 2 and 3 and it is submitted by learned counsel for respondents that Director of respondent –Company is present in the Court and even he has no objection to the quashing of FIR in question.
Since investigation in this case is at a crucial stage, therefore, this
Court is not inclined to invoke its extra inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings arising out of FIR in question.
This petition and applications are accordingly disposed of while refraining to comment upon merits of the case.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 25, 2015 r 2015:DHC:2884
Quashing of FIR No. 98/2013, under Sections 420/467/468/471/
120-B of the IPC, registered at police station Sagarpur, Delhi is sought on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding of of 5th June, 2014 (Annexure-P-4).
Notice.
Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and Mr. Saurabh Seth, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 2 & 3.
Mr. Navin Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
2015:DHC:2884 Crl.M.C.No.1216/2015 Page 2 respondent-State submits that investigation in this case is at a crucial stage and so, this petition is strongly opposed.
Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 submits that the settlement in terms of Memorandum of Understanding of 5th June, 2014 (Annexure-P-4) has been already acted upon and the complainant party i.e. respondents No. 2 & 3 have no objection to quashing of the FIR in question.
Attention of this Court has been drawn to the affidavits of respondents No. 2 and 3 and it is submitted by learned counsel for respondents that Director of respondent –Company is present in the Court and even he has no objection to the quashing of FIR in question.
Since investigation in this case is at a crucial stage, therefore, this
Court is not inclined to invoke its extra inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings arising out of FIR in question.
This petition and applications are accordingly disposed of while refraining to comment upon merits of the case.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 25, 2015 r 2015:DHC:2884