Full Text
Translation output
•
•
$--R-135 & 136 HIGH COURT OF DELHI (i) CRL.M.C.859/2007 & Crl.M.As.2962 & 5550 of 2007
(ii)
VINOD KUMAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Nemo
•
$--R-135 & 136 HIGH COURT OF DELHI (i) CRL.M.C.859/2007 & Crl.M.As.2962 & 5550 of 2007
(ii)
VINOD KUMAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Nemo
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. ..... Respondents
AJAY JAIN
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent-
State
AJAY JAIN
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent-
State
CRL.M.C.234/2008 ..... Petitioner
Through: Nemo
Through: Nemo
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. ..... Respondents
CORAM:
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent-
State
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
12.11.2013 In the above-captioned two petitions, quashing of FIR
No.787/2006 under Sections 408/120-B of!PC registered at P.S. Kalkaji, Delhi is sought on the ground of compromise arrived at between the parties.
CRL.MC.859/07 & 234108 Pagel 2013:DHC:6799
•
While entertaining the above-captioned two petitions, no interim order was passed.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State points out that there is no compromise deed nor there is any affidavit of respondent No.2, on record. However, the bail order of 7th March, 2007
(Annexure-B), reveals that petitioner-Vinod Kumar Sharma had undertaken to pay ~ 3,83,314/- to respondent-complainant and with this undertaking, bail was granted to petitioner-Vinod Kumar Sharma. Brief synopsis of respondent No.2, on record of Crl.M.C.859/2007, reveals that there is no settlement between petitioner and respondent No.2. Since there are no interim orders, therefore, trial of this FIR case must have proceeded. In any case, none appears on behalf of petitioner. Thus, there is no option except to dismiss these petitions.
In view of what is stated above, the above-captioned two petitions and the applications are dismissed in default and for non-prosecution.
NOVEMBER 12, 2013 s CRL.MC.859107 & 234108 ~ (SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Page2 2013:DHC:6799
State
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
12.11.2013 In the above-captioned two petitions, quashing of FIR
No.787/2006 under Sections 408/120-B of!PC registered at P.S. Kalkaji, Delhi is sought on the ground of compromise arrived at between the parties.
CRL.MC.859/07 & 234108 Pagel 2013:DHC:6799
•
While entertaining the above-captioned two petitions, no interim order was passed.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State points out that there is no compromise deed nor there is any affidavit of respondent No.2, on record. However, the bail order of 7th March, 2007
(Annexure-B), reveals that petitioner-Vinod Kumar Sharma had undertaken to pay ~ 3,83,314/- to respondent-complainant and with this undertaking, bail was granted to petitioner-Vinod Kumar Sharma. Brief synopsis of respondent No.2, on record of Crl.M.C.859/2007, reveals that there is no settlement between petitioner and respondent No.2. Since there are no interim orders, therefore, trial of this FIR case must have proceeded. In any case, none appears on behalf of petitioner. Thus, there is no option except to dismiss these petitions.
In view of what is stated above, the above-captioned two petitions and the applications are dismissed in default and for non-prosecution.
NOVEMBER 12, 2013 s CRL.MC.859107 & 234108 ~ (SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Page2 2013:DHC:6799
JUDGMENT