Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
/ix rRT..M.C. 1412/2012 &Crl-M.A.5017/2012
ANIRUDDHA MITRA &ORS. ••••• Petitioners
Through; Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Advocate
/ix rRT..M.C. 1412/2012 &Crl-M.A.5017/2012
ANIRUDDHA MITRA &ORS. ••••• Petitioners
Through; Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Advocate
VERSUS
THOMAS COOKINDIA LTD. Respondent
Through; Mr. U.A. Rana and Mr. V.M.
Srivastava, Advocates /in rRT .M.C. 141-^/2012 &Crl.1Vr.A.5020/2012
ANIFUDDHA MITRA &ORS. ••••• Petitioners
Advocate
Through; Mr. U.A. Rana and Mr. V.M.
Srivastava, Advocates /in rRT .M.C. 141-^/2012 &Crl.1Vr.A.5020/2012
ANIFUDDHA MITRA &ORS. ••••• Petitioners
Advocate
VERSUS
THOMAS COOKINDIALTD. E^espondent
Through: Mr. U.A, Rana and Mr. V.M.
(iii) rRT..M.C. 1414/2012 &Crl-M.A.5023/2012
ANIRUDDHA MITRA &, ORS. ••••• Petitioners
Through; Mr. Pankaj Kumar Smgh, Advocate
Through: Mr. U.A, Rana and Mr. V.M.
(iii) rRT..M.C. 1414/2012 &Crl-M.A.5023/2012
ANIRUDDHA MITRA &, ORS. ••••• Petitioners
Through; Mr. Pankaj Kumar Smgh, Advocate
VERSUS
THOMAS COOKINDIALTD. Respondent
Through; Mr. U.A. Rana and Mr. V.M.
(iv) n^T .M.C. 1415/2012 &Crl-M.A.5026/2012 ANIRUDDHA MITRA &ORS. Petitioners
Advocate
Through; Mr. U.A. Rana and Mr. V.M.
(iv) n^T .M.C. 1415/2012 &Crl-M.A.5026/2012 ANIRUDDHA MITRA &ORS. Petitioners
Advocate
VERSUS
Crl. M.Cs. 1412-1415; 1417; 1418&1420of2012 ' 1
2013:DHC:6783 THOMAS COOK INDIA LTD. Respondent
Through: Mr. U.A. Rana and Mr. V.M.
(v) CRL.M.C. 1417/2012 & CrLM.A.5029/2012 ANIRUDDHA MITRA & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Advocate
2013:DHC:6783 THOMAS COOK INDIA LTD. Respondent
Through: Mr. U.A. Rana and Mr. V.M.
(v) CRL.M.C. 1417/2012 & CrLM.A.5029/2012 ANIRUDDHA MITRA & ORS. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Advocate
VERSUS
(vi) CRL.M.C. 1418/2012 & Crl.M.A.5034/2012 Advocate
VERSUS
(vii) CRL.M.C. 1420/2012 & Crl.M.A.5041/2012 Advocate
VERSUS
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
25.10.2013 Crl M.Cs. 1412-1415; 1417; 1418 &1420of2012 ^ Page2
In above-captioned seven petitions, quashing of complaints under
Section 138 ofthe Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was initially sought on merits. However, learned counsel for parties, on instructions, submits that during the pendency of these petitions, the subject matter of the above captioned seven petitions has been mutually and amicably settled vide Memorandum ofUnderstanding of23'^^ July, 2013, whose copy has beenplacedon record.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the above- captioned seven petitions were heard together and by this common order, theyarebeingdisposed of.
Learned counsel for parties fiirther submits that the aforesaid
Memorandum of Understanding would be filed before the trial court on the next date ofhearing i.e. 6^ November, 2013 and when the aforesaid
Memorandum of Understanding would be fully acted upon, the complaints in question under Section 138 f/ze Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 would be withdrawn.
In view of the stand taken as aforesaid, the above-captioned seven petitions and the applications are disposed of in terms of aforesaid
Memorandum ofUnderstanding of23"^ July, 2013 and as and when the aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding is fully acted upon, the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 inthe complaints in question shall stand compounded by the trial court.
(SUNILGAUR)
Judge OCTOBER 25,2013 s Crl. M.Cs. 1412-1415; 1417; 1418 &1420 of2012 Page3 w
25.10.2013 Crl M.Cs. 1412-1415; 1417; 1418 &1420of2012 ^ Page2
In above-captioned seven petitions, quashing of complaints under
Section 138 ofthe Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was initially sought on merits. However, learned counsel for parties, on instructions, submits that during the pendency of these petitions, the subject matter of the above captioned seven petitions has been mutually and amicably settled vide Memorandum ofUnderstanding of23'^^ July, 2013, whose copy has beenplacedon record.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the above- captioned seven petitions were heard together and by this common order, theyarebeingdisposed of.
Learned counsel for parties fiirther submits that the aforesaid
Memorandum of Understanding would be filed before the trial court on the next date ofhearing i.e. 6^ November, 2013 and when the aforesaid
Memorandum of Understanding would be fully acted upon, the complaints in question under Section 138 f/ze Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 would be withdrawn.
In view of the stand taken as aforesaid, the above-captioned seven petitions and the applications are disposed of in terms of aforesaid
Memorandum ofUnderstanding of23"^ July, 2013 and as and when the aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding is fully acted upon, the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 inthe complaints in question shall stand compounded by the trial court.
(SUNILGAUR)
Judge OCTOBER 25,2013 s Crl. M.Cs. 1412-1415; 1417; 1418 &1420 of2012 Page3 w
JUDGMENT