Full Text
Translation output
#33
% 18.08.2011
Present: Mr.Chetan Walia, Special Attorney of the petitioners with Mr. Vishal Gosain, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for the respondent No.l/State with
Inspector Parveen Kumar, P.S. Subhash Place.
Respondent no2 in person with Mr. jatan Singh, Advocate.
+Cri.M.C. No.1499/2011
Parties are identified by their respective counsels and the Investigating
Officer Inspector Praveen Kumar, P.S. Subhash Place.
This is .a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of
Complaint Case No.2194/1 titled Shah Alam Vs. jasbir Singh Walia and Others vide under Section 406/420 IPC on the ground of settlement arrived at between the parties.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners jasbir Singh Walia and his wife Mrs. Ravinder Kaur Walia that they were directors of M/s. Thrill Marketing
Services Pvt. Ltd. which is in the business of import and sale of glassware and gift items etc. They started dealing with the respondent No.2 Shah Alam w.e.f. November, 2000. During the course of the business transaction, certain disputes arose which resulted in filing of FIR No.904/2007 under
Section 420/406/468/471/379/408/506 IPC against the respondent at P.S.
Saraswati Vihar. The respondent also filed the above noted criminal complaint against the petitioners for the offences under Section 406/420 IPC.
It is contended that the parties with the intervention of well-wishers and friends have amicably settled the matter and now there is no dispute left between them. The memorandum of understanding recording the terms and conditions of settlement was reduced into writing which was signed on behalf of the petitioners by their Special Attorney Chetan Walia and the respondent
2011:DHC:10694
No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that aforesaid settlement agreement has been acted upon and now there is no dispute left between the parties. Therefore, fl&-fruitful· purpose shall be served by prosecuting the petitioners on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No.2. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioners has pressed for quashing of the complaint.
Respondent No.2, who has been identified by his counsel Shri jatan
Singh, has confirmed having arrived at an amicable settlement with the petitioners through their attorney. He further submits that he signed the
-"· original of copy of memorandum of understanding annexed with the petition of his own accord without any inducement or threat from any corner.
Respondent No.2 further submits that now there is no dispute left between the parties, as such he does not wish to pursue his complaint and he has no objection if the proceedings of the complaint filed by him under Section
406/420 IPC are compounded and the petitioners are acquitted.
In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the above statement of respondent No.2 Shah Alam, the offence under Section 406/420
IPC which are subject matter of the complaint No. 2194/1 are allowed to be compounded and the petitioners are acquitted.
Petition stands disposed of.
AUGUST 18, 2011 pst
~
(AJIT BHARIHOKE)
JUDGE
2011:DHC:10694
% 18.08.2011
Present: Mr.Chetan Walia, Special Attorney of the petitioners with Mr. Vishal Gosain, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for the respondent No.l/State with
Inspector Parveen Kumar, P.S. Subhash Place.
Respondent no2 in person with Mr. jatan Singh, Advocate.
+Cri.M.C. No.1499/2011
Parties are identified by their respective counsels and the Investigating
Officer Inspector Praveen Kumar, P.S. Subhash Place.
This is .a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of
Complaint Case No.2194/1 titled Shah Alam Vs. jasbir Singh Walia and Others vide under Section 406/420 IPC on the ground of settlement arrived at between the parties.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners jasbir Singh Walia and his wife Mrs. Ravinder Kaur Walia that they were directors of M/s. Thrill Marketing
Services Pvt. Ltd. which is in the business of import and sale of glassware and gift items etc. They started dealing with the respondent No.2 Shah Alam w.e.f. November, 2000. During the course of the business transaction, certain disputes arose which resulted in filing of FIR No.904/2007 under
Section 420/406/468/471/379/408/506 IPC against the respondent at P.S.
Saraswati Vihar. The respondent also filed the above noted criminal complaint against the petitioners for the offences under Section 406/420 IPC.
It is contended that the parties with the intervention of well-wishers and friends have amicably settled the matter and now there is no dispute left between them. The memorandum of understanding recording the terms and conditions of settlement was reduced into writing which was signed on behalf of the petitioners by their Special Attorney Chetan Walia and the respondent
2011:DHC:10694
No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that aforesaid settlement agreement has been acted upon and now there is no dispute left between the parties. Therefore, fl&-fruitful· purpose shall be served by prosecuting the petitioners on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No.2. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioners has pressed for quashing of the complaint.
Respondent No.2, who has been identified by his counsel Shri jatan
Singh, has confirmed having arrived at an amicable settlement with the petitioners through their attorney. He further submits that he signed the
-"· original of copy of memorandum of understanding annexed with the petition of his own accord without any inducement or threat from any corner.
Respondent No.2 further submits that now there is no dispute left between the parties, as such he does not wish to pursue his complaint and he has no objection if the proceedings of the complaint filed by him under Section
406/420 IPC are compounded and the petitioners are acquitted.
In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the above statement of respondent No.2 Shah Alam, the offence under Section 406/420
IPC which are subject matter of the complaint No. 2194/1 are allowed to be compounded and the petitioners are acquitted.
Petition stands disposed of.
AUGUST 18, 2011 pst
~
(AJIT BHARIHOKE)
JUDGE
2011:DHC:10694
JUDGMENT