Full Text
CRL.M.C. 3404/2011
JUDGMENT
Through : Mr.Rakesh Malhotra and Mr. R.K. Tripathi, Advs. for petitioners
No.1 to 3.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. for petitioner No.4.
Through : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State with SI Kuldeep Bhoriya, PS
Rani Bagh Mr. Sudhir Vats, Adv. for R-2
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO. 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? NO. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) Crl.M.A. No. 12094/2011 Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2011:DHC:5286 CRL.M.C. 3403/2011
1. Vide FIR No.19 dated 19.01.2011 a case under Section 406/420/506/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at PS Rani Bagh against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2. Ld.counsel for the petitioners submits that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties before the Mediation Centre, Rohini Distt. Courts, Delhi on 23.04.2011.
2. Respondent No.2 who is personally present in the Court along with his counsel Mr. Sudhir Vats and submits that he has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR against the petitioners before the Mediation Centre, Rohini Distt. Courts, Delhi on 23.04.2011. He submits that he does not wish to pursue the case any further and has no objection if the aforesaid FIR and all the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
3. SI Kuldeep Bhoriya, PS Rani Bagh is present in the Court and identified respondent No.2.
4. Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that as per the settlement, the total amount has been received by the respondent No.2 and nothing is due against the petitioners in respect of the aforesaid FIR.
5. Keeping in view the aforesaid settlement arrived at the Mediation Centre, Rohini Distt. Courts, Delhi on 23.04.2011, I quash the aforesaid FIR No.19 dated 19.01.2011 under Section 406/420/506/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at PS Rani Bagh against the petitioners and all the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom.
6. In the connected case being CRL.M.C. No.3403/2011 the costs have already been imposed on the petitioners. Therefore, I refrain from imposing costs in this matter.
7. Accordingly, CRL.M.C. 3404/2011 is allowed.
8. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J OCTOBER 13, 2011 RS