Full Text
Translation output
m
$-76 & 4.
* IN THE HIGH COURT
+ CRL.M.C. 2054/2013
MOHD.NASEEM
Through:
+
$-76 & 4.
* IN THE HIGH COURT
+ CRL.M.C. 2054/2013
MOHD.NASEEM
Through:
+
VERSUS
STATE & ANR.
Through:
CRL.M.C. 4290/2012
RAJESH NANDWANI
Through:
Through:
CRL.M.C. 4290/2012
RAJESH NANDWANI
Through:
VERSUS
STATE & ANR.
Through:
OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Petitioner
Mr.Dushyant Swaroop & Mr.Yogesh
Swroop, Advocates
Respondents
Mr.Navin Sharma, AFP for State with
SI Shan Singh, PW EOW
Mr.P.K.Mittal, Advocate for R-2 along with R-2 in person
Petitioner
Mr.Rahul Vidhani, Advocate
Respondents
Mr.Navin Sharma, APP for State with
SI Shan Singh, PW EOW
Mr.P.K.Mittal, Advocate for R-2 along with R-2 in person
Through:
OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Petitioner
Mr.Dushyant Swaroop & Mr.Yogesh
Swroop, Advocates
Respondents
Mr.Navin Sharma, AFP for State with
SI Shan Singh, PW EOW
Mr.P.K.Mittal, Advocate for R-2 along with R-2 in person
Petitioner
Mr.Rahul Vidhani, Advocate
Respondents
Mr.Navin Sharma, APP for State with
SI Shan Singh, PW EOW
Mr.P.K.Mittal, Advocate for R-2 along with R-2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
%
17.05.2013
By this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.68/2009 registered under Section 63 of the Copyright
Act, 1957 (Amendment Acts, 1984 & 1994) at P.S. Economic Offences
Wing, Crime & Railway, Delhi and all the criminal proceedings arising
2013:DHC:7769 therefrom.
The parties are present in person in the Court along with their respective counsel. They are duly identified by the 10 of the present case who is also present in the Court.
It is stated by the learned counsel for the parties that with the intervention of common friends and relatives of the respective parties, the petitioners and respondent No.2 have amicably settled all their inter se disputes. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that as the petitioners and respondent No.2 have amicably settled all their inter se disputes, respondent No.2 is left with no claim or grievance of any nature against the petitioners, therefore, no useftil purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The counsel, therefore, prays for quashing of the FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising out from the same.
Respondent No.2 (Rajnish Pawari) is the complainant in the said FIR who is also present in the Court with his counsel. He confirms the factum of amicable settlement with the petitioners and filed affidavits in support of quashing of the FIR in both the petitions. He has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed against the petitioners.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
In view of tlie aforesaid amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, as the same would only be an exercise in fiitility and wastage ofprecious time ofthe Court.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.68/2.009 registered under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (Amendment Acts, 1984 &
%
17.05.2013
By this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.68/2009 registered under Section 63 of the Copyright
Act, 1957 (Amendment Acts, 1984 & 1994) at P.S. Economic Offences
Wing, Crime & Railway, Delhi and all the criminal proceedings arising
2013:DHC:7769 therefrom.
The parties are present in person in the Court along with their respective counsel. They are duly identified by the 10 of the present case who is also present in the Court.
It is stated by the learned counsel for the parties that with the intervention of common friends and relatives of the respective parties, the petitioners and respondent No.2 have amicably settled all their inter se disputes. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that as the petitioners and respondent No.2 have amicably settled all their inter se disputes, respondent No.2 is left with no claim or grievance of any nature against the petitioners, therefore, no useftil purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The counsel, therefore, prays for quashing of the FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising out from the same.
Respondent No.2 (Rajnish Pawari) is the complainant in the said FIR who is also present in the Court with his counsel. He confirms the factum of amicable settlement with the petitioners and filed affidavits in support of quashing of the FIR in both the petitions. He has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed against the petitioners.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
In view of tlie aforesaid amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, as the same would only be an exercise in fiitility and wastage ofprecious time ofthe Court.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.68/2.009 registered under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (Amendment Acts, 1984 &
ORDER
1994) at P.S. Economic Offences Wing, Crime & Railway, Delhi and all the proceedings arising therefrom as against the petitioner are quashed. MAY 17,2013 V KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.