Suraj Sharma & Anr. v. N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr.

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioners by virtue of which the petitioners prayed for quashing of FIR No.68/2011, under Section 406/34 IPG, registered by P.S. Kalkaji and the consequent investigation carried out by the Police.

2. The ground for quashing of the FIR is that the petitioners have arrived at settlement with the respondent No.2/complainant Ravi Jain.

3. The allegations against the petitioners is that they were employed by respondent no.2/complainant as salesman and they 2011:DHC:12148 had committed criminal breach of trust of Rs.4,40,000/- by collecting money from various customers as well as by taking away certain machines e.g. laptop from the shop.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the FIR was registered. The petitioners have now settled the matter with the respondent no.2/complainant and have paid a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- towards the full and final settlement of all the claims of the respondent no.2/complainant.

5. The petition is supported by the affidavit of Mr. Suraj Sharma and Mr. Sanjay Saxena. Both are present in Court and are duly identified by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Affidavit of respondent no.2/complainant supporting the averments made in the petition is also placed on record. The respondent no. 2 is also present in Court and is duly identified by I.O. ASI K. P. Singh as well as by the learned counsel for the respondent No2/complainant.

6. The learned APP has no objection to the quashing of the FIR although it has been stated by him that the offence of which the petitioners are accused is of serious nature and carries punishment upto 07 years, therefore, the petitioners should be directed to deposit some costs, before an order of quashing of the FIR and the consequent proceedings is passed. \

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned APP and I have also gone through the record. Since, the petitioners have settled the matter with the respondent no.2/complainant despite the fact that the offence is not compoundable, I feel that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the aforesaid FIR and the consequent investigations pending. [However, I am also cognizant of the fact that the petitioners have committed an offence for which they do not deserve to be let out without ^ depositing some costs. Accordingly, the petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.75,000/- in the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of two weeks from today. The original receipt with regard to the deposit of the amount be placed on record.

8. Accordingly, FIR No.68/2011 under Section 406/34 IPC, registered by P.S. Kalkaji and the consequent investigations are quashed subject to deposit of the costs.

SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 % V.K. SHALI^J