Full Text
W.P.(CRL) 107/2013
ANUJTYAGI..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.M.SJadhav, Advocate.
Standing Counsel with Ms.Manvi Priya, Advocate for R-l/State withSI Rajesh Kumar P.S. Mehrauli in person.
RespondentNo.2 present in person.
17.04.2013 , /t'. 1. This' is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure filed by, the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.93/2011 under
Section 420 IPC, P.S. Mehrauli and consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
ORDER
2. The facts leading to the registration of the aforesaid FIR are that the respon~ent No.2 filed a cOlnplaint case No.1139/11 under Section 138 N.!.. A~t alleging that the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.584328 dated 30.10.2010 for Rs.3,92,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Saket, New Delhi to respondent No.2 and.when respondent No.2 presented the said cheque with his b.anker, the same got dishonoured due'to insufficient funds. 'Thereafter the respondent No.2 also got registered the aforesaid FIR against the petitioner alleging cheating on'the part ofthe petitioner. 2013:DHC:7518
3. It is stated in the petition that both the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement of their disputes and in terms of said settlement the petitioner has paid a sum ofRs.7,10,OOO/- to respondent No.2 in the Court of learned M.M., New Delhi towards full and final settlement of the cheque in dispute in present of 10 of the case. Statement of respondent No.2/complainant was recorded by the learned M.M on 15.12.2012 to the effect that he has compromised the matter with petitioner and has received· full and final amount from him. A Compromise Deed dated 03.01.~013 to this effect is also placed on record to affinn the factum of settlement between the parties..
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the lnatter in dispute has been amicably settled, hence no purpose would be served in prosecuting the petitioner, therefore, the FIR may be quashed.
7. Respondent No.2/complainant is present in Court today and submits. that the comprolnise has already been effected with the petitioner/accused Anuj Tyagi whose brother Manoj Tyagi is also an accused in this case. He //' submits that in terms of settlement entered into between the parties, against cheque amount of Rs.3,92,OOO/-, he has already received a sum of Rs.7,10,OOO/- from the petitioner.and his brother. Thus, he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. He further submits that the dispute pertaining to complaint under Section 138 of N.L Act has already been settled on 12.01.2013 in Lok Adalat pursuant to the statelnent made by tqe complainant before the learned M.M. on 15.12.2012 and the present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing ofFIR registered under Se~tion 420 IPC. Respondent No.2 has also placed on record his statement along with copy of his identity proof wherein he has reiterated the factunl of amicable settlement with the petitioner and that he has no obje~tion if the FIR in question is quashed.
8. In view of the aforesaid amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, I am of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, which will onlybe an exercise in futile and wastage ofprecious time of-the Court.
9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.93/2011 under Section 420 IPC, P.S. Mehrauli and consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
10. Petitioner is, however, directed to deposit costs of Rs.5,OOO/- with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of two weeks from the date of this order and the receipt of deposit ofthe same·be filed in the Registry. 11.' Dasti.