Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Crl. M.C. No. 1532/2013 Ofo AKSHAY THAKUR AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Crl. M.C. No. 1532/2013 Ofo AKSHAY THAKUR AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
VERSUS
Through: Ms.Rakhi Dubey and Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocates.
'1'HE STATE AND ANR. ..... Respondents
'1'HE STATE AND ANR. ..... Respondents
CORAM:
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with Investigating
Officer Raj Pal, Police Station Mourya Enclave, Delhi
Mr. Sandeep Banga, Advocate for Complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
18.04.2013 Crl.M.A. No. 4767/2013 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl. M.C. No. 1532/2013 CD By this petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., petitioners are seeking quashing of F.I.R. No. 165/2012, under Section 149/420/468/120 of IPC, registered at Police Station Maurya Enclave, New Delhi.
Counsel for the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 present in Court, submit that both the parties have amicably settled all their disputes in terms of
2013:DHC:6794 ' QJ Settlement Agreement dated 16th April 2013 entered into between them, before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini District Courts, Delhi. Counsel further submits that in terms of settlement petitioners have agreed to pay ~9 lacs to the respondent No. 2 - Complainant of the FIR in question and out of the said amount, the petitioner has already paid an amount of ~5.25 lacs and balance amount of ~3.75 lacs has been paid by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2 vide Demand Draft being DD No. 016430 drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., in favour of Saket Agarwal. Counsel also submits that the said settlement agreement arrived at between them has settled all disputes between petitioners and responient No. 2. The Investigating Officer of this case is present in Court and states that they have not received any other complaint from any other person against the petitioners. The petitioner present in person also states that this is the only FIR lodged against him at the instance of respondent No. 2 and to their knowledge, there is no other criminal complaint pending against them. Counsel also submits that it has also been agreed between the parties that the amount of
~3.75 lacs which was deposited by petitioner No.2 in compliance of order of 11th March 2013 at the time of grant of interim protection in his favour can be released in his favour and the respondent No. 2 will have no objection for the release ofthe said amount.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.
Taking into consideration the fact that the subject matter of the FIR in
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------· ------------- ------------
@ question has been settled between the parties through the Settlement Agreement dated 16th April 2013 entered into between them, before the Delhi Mediation
Centre, Rohini District Courts, Delhi and in terms thereof, the settled amount has already been paid by petitioner to respondent No. 2 and as per Investigating
Officer of this case, there is no other complaint received by the police against the petitioners and also taking into consideration the·statement of the petitioners that as per their knowledge, there is no such similar complaint pending against them, t1-}is Court is inclined to quash the present FIR, as I am ofthe view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the said FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom unnecessarily alive any further against the petitioners.
Accordingly, the FIR No. 165/2012, under Section 149/420/468/120 of IPC, registered at Police Station Maurya Enclave, New Delhi and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, qua the petitioners. The petitioner No.2 shall now be entitled to seek release of a sum of ~3.75 lacs alongwith interest if any, accrued thereon, which is lying deposited with this
Court, as aforesaid.
With aforesaid directions, this petition stands disposed of.
APRIL 18, 2013 pkb KAIL~AMBHIR,J --, HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL. M. C. 1532/2013
AKSHAY THAKUR & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through Ms.Rakhi Dubey, Advocate
Officer Raj Pal, Police Station Mourya Enclave, Delhi
Mr. Sandeep Banga, Advocate for Complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
18.04.2013 Crl.M.A. No. 4767/2013 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl. M.C. No. 1532/2013 CD By this petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., petitioners are seeking quashing of F.I.R. No. 165/2012, under Section 149/420/468/120 of IPC, registered at Police Station Maurya Enclave, New Delhi.
Counsel for the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 present in Court, submit that both the parties have amicably settled all their disputes in terms of
2013:DHC:6794 ' QJ Settlement Agreement dated 16th April 2013 entered into between them, before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini District Courts, Delhi. Counsel further submits that in terms of settlement petitioners have agreed to pay ~9 lacs to the respondent No. 2 - Complainant of the FIR in question and out of the said amount, the petitioner has already paid an amount of ~5.25 lacs and balance amount of ~3.75 lacs has been paid by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2 vide Demand Draft being DD No. 016430 drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., in favour of Saket Agarwal. Counsel also submits that the said settlement agreement arrived at between them has settled all disputes between petitioners and responient No. 2. The Investigating Officer of this case is present in Court and states that they have not received any other complaint from any other person against the petitioners. The petitioner present in person also states that this is the only FIR lodged against him at the instance of respondent No. 2 and to their knowledge, there is no other criminal complaint pending against them. Counsel also submits that it has also been agreed between the parties that the amount of
~3.75 lacs which was deposited by petitioner No.2 in compliance of order of 11th March 2013 at the time of grant of interim protection in his favour can be released in his favour and the respondent No. 2 will have no objection for the release ofthe said amount.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.
Taking into consideration the fact that the subject matter of the FIR in
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------· ------------- ------------
@ question has been settled between the parties through the Settlement Agreement dated 16th April 2013 entered into between them, before the Delhi Mediation
Centre, Rohini District Courts, Delhi and in terms thereof, the settled amount has already been paid by petitioner to respondent No. 2 and as per Investigating
Officer of this case, there is no other complaint received by the police against the petitioners and also taking into consideration the·statement of the petitioners that as per their knowledge, there is no such similar complaint pending against them, t1-}is Court is inclined to quash the present FIR, as I am ofthe view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the said FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom unnecessarily alive any further against the petitioners.
Accordingly, the FIR No. 165/2012, under Section 149/420/468/120 of IPC, registered at Police Station Maurya Enclave, New Delhi and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, qua the petitioners. The petitioner No.2 shall now be entitled to seek release of a sum of ~3.75 lacs alongwith interest if any, accrued thereon, which is lying deposited with this
Court, as aforesaid.
With aforesaid directions, this petition stands disposed of.
APRIL 18, 2013 pkb KAIL~AMBHIR,J --, HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL. M. C. 1532/2013
AKSHAY THAKUR & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through Ms.Rakhi Dubey, Advocate
VERSUS
THE STATE & ANR
Through
Through
CORAM:
None.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
06.09.2013 Crl.M.A.12817/2013 ..... Respondents
;;
By this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek clarification ofthe order dated 18th April, 2013 passed by this Court.
Ms.Rakhi Dubey, counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that vide order dated 18th April, 2013 this Court gave a direction for the release of Rs.3.75 lacs in favour of petitioner No.2 but at the time of passing of the said order somehow the date of the order was wrongly recorded as 11th March, 2013 in place of 18th October, 2012. Counsel also submits that the
Registry has declined to release the said amount ofRs.3.75 lacs in favour of petitioner No.2 on account that the date of the bail order mentioned is wrong and even there is no mention of the application number. Counsel further submits that there is no need to direct the notice of this application on the opposite party.
For the reasons as stated in the application, the· modification prayed by the petitioners is allowed. The order dated 11th March, 2013 as mentioned in the order dated 18th April, 2013 shall now be read as 18th October, 2012.
In addition to that the order is also modified to incorporate the B.A.
No.l535/2012.
The Registry is directed to release the said amo!Jnt of Rs.3.75 lacs in favour ofpetitioner No.2 without any delay. Ordered accordingly.
The application stands disposed o£ SEPTEMBER 06, 2013 v
~ KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
06.09.2013 Crl.M.A.12817/2013 ..... Respondents
;;
By this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek clarification ofthe order dated 18th April, 2013 passed by this Court.
Ms.Rakhi Dubey, counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that vide order dated 18th April, 2013 this Court gave a direction for the release of Rs.3.75 lacs in favour of petitioner No.2 but at the time of passing of the said order somehow the date of the order was wrongly recorded as 11th March, 2013 in place of 18th October, 2012. Counsel also submits that the
Registry has declined to release the said amount ofRs.3.75 lacs in favour of petitioner No.2 on account that the date of the bail order mentioned is wrong and even there is no mention of the application number. Counsel further submits that there is no need to direct the notice of this application on the opposite party.
For the reasons as stated in the application, the· modification prayed by the petitioners is allowed. The order dated 11th March, 2013 as mentioned in the order dated 18th April, 2013 shall now be read as 18th October, 2012.
In addition to that the order is also modified to incorporate the B.A.
No.l535/2012.
The Registry is directed to release the said amo!Jnt of Rs.3.75 lacs in favour ofpetitioner No.2 without any delay. Ordered accordingly.
The application stands disposed o£ SEPTEMBER 06, 2013 v
~ KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
JUDGMENT