Full Text
Translation output
$-8, 11,12,15,16 & 18 (15.11.13)
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
(i) CRL.M.C 3656/2011 & CrLM.A. No.17490/2011
VIJAY TATA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashwin Vaish and Mr. Vinod Pandey, Advocates
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
(i) CRL.M.C 3656/2011 & CrLM.A. No.17490/2011
VIJAY TATA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashwin Vaish and Mr. Vinod Pandey, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE & ORS. Respondents
Through: Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent -State
Mr. Anil Soni, Advocate for complainant (ii) CRL.M.C. 3659/2011 & CrLM.A. No.17496/2011
VIJAY TATA .... Petitioner
Through: Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent -State
Mr. Anil Soni, Advocate for complainant (ii) CRL.M.C. 3659/2011 & CrLM.A. No.17496/2011
VIJAY TATA .... Petitioner
VERSUS
^ complainant (iii) CRL.M.C. 3660/2011 & CrLM.A. No.17498/2011
VERSUS
CRLMCs.3656. 3659, 3660, 3663, 3664&3666of2011 Page 1
2013:DHC:6637 (iv) CRL.M.C. 3663/2011 & Crl.M.A. No.17504/2011
2013:DHC:6637 (iv) CRL.M.C. 3663/2011 & Crl.M.A. No.17504/2011
VERSUS
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public (v) CRL.M.C. 3664/2011 & CrI.M.A. No.17506/2011
VERSUS
Through: Mr.Ravi Nayak, Additional Public (vi) CRL.M.C. 3666/2011 & Crl.M.A. No.17510/2011
VERSUS
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public CRL.M.Cs.3656, 3659, 3660, 3663, 3664 &3666of2011 Ja^
•v>
•v>
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
21.11.2013 In the above-captioned six petitions, quashing of FIR No.68/2003 under Sections 420/120-B of IPC registered at P.S. Connaught Place, New Delhi is sought on the basis of settlement arrived at with complainant party. Inthe alternative, permission issought bypetitioner to settle the dispute with remaining complainants with direction to respondent-State to furnish correct ofsuch complainants.
At the hearing, learned counsel forpetitionerhad submitted thatthe compromise deed (Annexure-C colly.) has been already acted upon and private respondents ofthe above-captioned petitions are thecomplainants in the charge-sheet No. 2, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 24.
Since the separate charge-sheets have been filed in the FIR in question, therefore, it is deemed appropriate to permit petitioner to seek discharge from trial court onthe basis of settlement of the subject matter of this FIR with the complainant party of charge-sheet No. 2,1, 8, 9, 10
& 24. Such a course is being adopted because respondent-complainants are not present in the Court.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, trial court at the hearing on thepointof framing of charge shall obtain the presence of complainant-respondents of the above-mentioned charge-sheets i.e. No. charge-sheet No.2,8,24,9,10 & 7 and will satisfy itself as to whether the
CRL.M.Cs.3656, 3659, 3660, 3663, 3664 &3666 of2011 Page 3 compromise so arrived at stands acted upon or not and if it is found that the compromise reached with the complainantparty ofthe above-referred charge-sheets has been fully acted upon, then trial court shall discharge petitioner in the afore-referred charge-sheets.
Petitioner shall also appear before the trial court on every date of hearing and if petitioner fails to do so, then trial court would be well within its right to take petitioner into custody.
Trial court be apprised ofthis order forthwith.
Original compromise deeds of these matters on record of
Crl.M.C.No.3651/2011 be returned back to petitioner to be presented before the trial court.
With directions as aforesaid, the above-captioned six petitions and the applications are disposed of
Dasti.
(SUNILGAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 21,2013 CRLMCs.3656, 3659, 3660, 3663, 3664&3666of2011 Page 4
21.11.2013 In the above-captioned six petitions, quashing of FIR No.68/2003 under Sections 420/120-B of IPC registered at P.S. Connaught Place, New Delhi is sought on the basis of settlement arrived at with complainant party. Inthe alternative, permission issought bypetitioner to settle the dispute with remaining complainants with direction to respondent-State to furnish correct ofsuch complainants.
At the hearing, learned counsel forpetitionerhad submitted thatthe compromise deed (Annexure-C colly.) has been already acted upon and private respondents ofthe above-captioned petitions are thecomplainants in the charge-sheet No. 2, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 24.
Since the separate charge-sheets have been filed in the FIR in question, therefore, it is deemed appropriate to permit petitioner to seek discharge from trial court onthe basis of settlement of the subject matter of this FIR with the complainant party of charge-sheet No. 2,1, 8, 9, 10
& 24. Such a course is being adopted because respondent-complainants are not present in the Court.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, trial court at the hearing on thepointof framing of charge shall obtain the presence of complainant-respondents of the above-mentioned charge-sheets i.e. No. charge-sheet No.2,8,24,9,10 & 7 and will satisfy itself as to whether the
CRL.M.Cs.3656, 3659, 3660, 3663, 3664 &3666 of2011 Page 3 compromise so arrived at stands acted upon or not and if it is found that the compromise reached with the complainantparty ofthe above-referred charge-sheets has been fully acted upon, then trial court shall discharge petitioner in the afore-referred charge-sheets.
Petitioner shall also appear before the trial court on every date of hearing and if petitioner fails to do so, then trial court would be well within its right to take petitioner into custody.
Trial court be apprised ofthis order forthwith.
Original compromise deeds of these matters on record of
Crl.M.C.No.3651/2011 be returned back to petitioner to be presented before the trial court.
With directions as aforesaid, the above-captioned six petitions and the applications are disposed of
Dasti.
(SUNILGAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 21,2013 CRLMCs.3656, 3659, 3660, 3663, 3664&3666of2011 Page 4
JUDGMENT