Full Text
Translation output
i HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL)704/2010& Crl. M.As.6011/2010& 10653/2011
KUSUM GOEL Petitioner
Through Mr. Lalit Gupta & Mr. M. H. Khan, Advocates with petitioner in person.
W.P.(CRL)704/2010& Crl. M.As.6011/2010& 10653/2011
KUSUM GOEL Petitioner
Through Mr. Lalit Gupta & Mr. M. H. Khan, Advocates with petitioner in person.
VERSUS
STATE& ANR Respondent
Through Mr.Dayan Krishnan, A.S.C. for State with Insp. Sajjan Singh, Crime
Branch(R-l).
Mr. Sunil K. Mittal, Advocate with Respondent No.2in person.
Through Mr.Dayan Krishnan, A.S.C. for State with Insp. Sajjan Singh, Crime
Branch(R-l).
Mr. Sunil K. Mittal, Advocate with Respondent No.2in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
16.09.2011 By this petition,the Petitioner seeks quashing ofthe FIR No.17/2010 under Sections 420/468/471 IPC registered at PS.Pahar Ganj,Delhi on the complaintofRespondent No.2.
When this petition came up for hearing on 26'^ August,2010,though the parties had arrived at a settlement and a memorandum of understanding(MOU) dated 26'^ April,2010 had already been executed,the
Complainant stated that the signatures on the MOU were not hers and were forged. Thus,this Court was constrained to direct the specimen signatures
2011:DHC:18294 I k i (^4 of the Complainant and her husband be sent to the Forensic Science
Laboratory(FSL)so asto compare withthe signatures on the MOU.
Number of proceedings were held. Thereafter, a report has been received fi-om the FSL that the signatures on the MOU were of the Complainant.
Now, the Complainant states that she has settled the matter with the
Petitioner and that the terms ofthe MOU have been effectuated.
Respondent No.2 is present in Court today and is identified by her learned counsel and the investigating officer. She tenders her unconditional apology for her conduct in disowning the signatures on the MOU leaving number ofhours ofthis Court and State machinery being wasted. She states that she will deposit a sum ofRs. One lakh as cost with the Prime Minister
Relief Fund within three weeks from today as a mark of repentance. She states that she has no objection ifthe FIR in question and the proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
Since the parties have amicably resolved their difference and the pendency of the present proceedings will bring further acrimony and disharmony between the two, it would be in the interest ofjustice if the presentFIR is quashed. There is no legalimpedimentin quashingtheFIR in question.
Accordingly, FIR No. 17/2010 under Sections 420/468/471 IPC mim registered atPS.Pahar Ganj,Delhiand the proceedings pursuantthereto are quashed. It is further directed that four original sale deeds lying with the to place on record ofthis file the original Memorandum ofUnderstanding and other documents kept in sealed covers pursuant to order dated 26""
August,2010.
Parties have signed this order sheet in acknowledgment of then- statements made before this Court.
Petition and all pending applications stand disposed of.
Order dasti to all the parties.
SEPTEMBER 16,2011 'dk' ' MUKTA GUPTAJ I
16.09.2011 By this petition,the Petitioner seeks quashing ofthe FIR No.17/2010 under Sections 420/468/471 IPC registered at PS.Pahar Ganj,Delhi on the complaintofRespondent No.2.
When this petition came up for hearing on 26'^ August,2010,though the parties had arrived at a settlement and a memorandum of understanding(MOU) dated 26'^ April,2010 had already been executed,the
Complainant stated that the signatures on the MOU were not hers and were forged. Thus,this Court was constrained to direct the specimen signatures
2011:DHC:18294 I k i (^4 of the Complainant and her husband be sent to the Forensic Science
Laboratory(FSL)so asto compare withthe signatures on the MOU.
Number of proceedings were held. Thereafter, a report has been received fi-om the FSL that the signatures on the MOU were of the Complainant.
Now, the Complainant states that she has settled the matter with the
Petitioner and that the terms ofthe MOU have been effectuated.
Respondent No.2 is present in Court today and is identified by her learned counsel and the investigating officer. She tenders her unconditional apology for her conduct in disowning the signatures on the MOU leaving number ofhours ofthis Court and State machinery being wasted. She states that she will deposit a sum ofRs. One lakh as cost with the Prime Minister
Relief Fund within three weeks from today as a mark of repentance. She states that she has no objection ifthe FIR in question and the proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
Since the parties have amicably resolved their difference and the pendency of the present proceedings will bring further acrimony and disharmony between the two, it would be in the interest ofjustice if the presentFIR is quashed. There is no legalimpedimentin quashingtheFIR in question.
Accordingly, FIR No. 17/2010 under Sections 420/468/471 IPC mim registered atPS.Pahar Ganj,Delhiand the proceedings pursuantthereto are quashed. It is further directed that four original sale deeds lying with the to place on record ofthis file the original Memorandum ofUnderstanding and other documents kept in sealed covers pursuant to order dated 26""
August,2010.
Parties have signed this order sheet in acknowledgment of then- statements made before this Court.
Petition and all pending applications stand disposed of.
Order dasti to all the parties.
SEPTEMBER 16,2011 'dk' ' MUKTA GUPTAJ I
JUDGMENT