Full Text
Translation output
r $-11 & 12 HIGH COURT OF DELHI (i) CRL.M.C. 660/2012 & CrI.M.A. No.2309/2013
AMIT JUDGE & ANR. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Atul Singh and Mr. K. Datta, Advocates
AMIT JUDGE & ANR. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Atul Singh and Mr. K. Datta, Advocates
VERSUS
PANKAJ MUNJAL & ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr. Kamal Nijhawan and Mr. Sumit Gaur, Advocates for respondent No.1
(ii) CRL.M.C. 661/2012 & CrI.M.A. No.2311/2013
DEVBHOOMI AWAS LTD. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Atul Singh and Mr. K. Datta, Advocates
Through: Mr. Kamal Nijhawan and Mr. Sumit Gaur, Advocates for respondent No.1
(ii) CRL.M.C. 661/2012 & CrI.M.A. No.2311/2013
DEVBHOOMI AWAS LTD. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Atul Singh and Mr. K. Datta, Advocates
VERSUS
PANKAJ MUNJAL & ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr. Kamal Nijhawan and Mr. Sumit Gaur, Advocates for respondent No. 1
Through: Mr. Kamal Nijhawan and Mr. Sumit Gaur, Advocates for respondent No. 1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
07.10.2013 In the above-captioned two petitions, quashing of order of
January, 2012 vide which petitioners have been summoned as accused in
Criminal Complaint No.81/1/2011 titled PankaJ Munja & Anr. v.
Devbhoomi Awas Ltd. & Ors. under Section 420 read with Section 120-B ofIPC is sought.
CrlM.C.660& 661 of12 Pagel 2013:DHC:6838 With the consent of learned counsel for parties, both these petitions were taken up for hearing together and by this common order, these two petitions are being disposed of as, at the hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Courtthat the subject matterof the complaint in question is also part of the comprehensive settlement arrived at between the parties before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. It was pointed out by boththe sides thatthe terms of settlement are reflected in theorder of 3'"'' October, 2013 oftheaforesaid Forum and inview thereof, complaint in question is to be withdrawn and the date fixed before the trial court is 16^ November, 2013. It was also pointed out that itwill take three months for the settlement to be acted upon and therefore, a date after three months be fixed in these matters.
Be that as it may.
Since the subject matter of the complaint in question stands settled between the parties, therefore, there is no point in adjourning these two petitions to another date. Instead thereof, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of these two petitions with directions to both respondents/complainants to withdraw the pending complaint in question after the settlement arrived at between the parties is ftilly acted upon.
With aforesaid observations, both these petitions and the applications are disposed of
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge OCTOBER 07, 2013 s CrlM.C.660 & 661 of12 Page 2
2013:DHC:6838
07.10.2013 In the above-captioned two petitions, quashing of order of
January, 2012 vide which petitioners have been summoned as accused in
Criminal Complaint No.81/1/2011 titled PankaJ Munja & Anr. v.
Devbhoomi Awas Ltd. & Ors. under Section 420 read with Section 120-B ofIPC is sought.
CrlM.C.660& 661 of12 Pagel 2013:DHC:6838 With the consent of learned counsel for parties, both these petitions were taken up for hearing together and by this common order, these two petitions are being disposed of as, at the hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Courtthat the subject matterof the complaint in question is also part of the comprehensive settlement arrived at between the parties before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. It was pointed out by boththe sides thatthe terms of settlement are reflected in theorder of 3'"'' October, 2013 oftheaforesaid Forum and inview thereof, complaint in question is to be withdrawn and the date fixed before the trial court is 16^ November, 2013. It was also pointed out that itwill take three months for the settlement to be acted upon and therefore, a date after three months be fixed in these matters.
Be that as it may.
Since the subject matter of the complaint in question stands settled between the parties, therefore, there is no point in adjourning these two petitions to another date. Instead thereof, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of these two petitions with directions to both respondents/complainants to withdraw the pending complaint in question after the settlement arrived at between the parties is ftilly acted upon.
With aforesaid observations, both these petitions and the applications are disposed of
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge OCTOBER 07, 2013 s CrlM.C.660 & 661 of12 Page 2
2013:DHC:6838
JUDGMENT