Full Text
Translation output
35 \
#
% 15.12.2010
Present: Mr. Viyek Singh and Mr. Pratik Batta, Advs. for the petitioners along with petitioners are in person.
Mr. Arvind Gupta, APP for the State alogn with ASI Prehlad
Singh, P.S. Hari Nagar.
Counsel for respondent no.2 (appearance not given) along with respondent no. 2 in person.
+ Crl. M.A. 18566 72010
*
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
+ Crl. M.C. 3884/2010
A collaboration agreement was entered between respondent no.2 and petitioner no. 1 with regard to construction to be raised on the plot bearing BE 233, Gali No. 4, Hari Nagar, New Delhi owned by petitioner no.l. It appears that some disputes arose between respondent no. 2 and petitioner no. 1 regarding compliance of terms of the agreement. This led to registration of the FIR in question, on the complaint of respondent no.2. Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are wife and son of petitioner no. 1. •Now, with the intervention of common friends and family members, petitioner no.l and respondent no.2 have settled their dispute amicably. Terms of settlement have been recorded in compromise/settlement deed 26^ November, 2010 (Annexure P2 page
2010:DHC:9300
V nos. 23 to 29). Respondent no.2, who is present in Court, has no objection if the FIR is quashed.
Since both the parties have settled their dispute amicably, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served in compelling the parties to continue to litigate a protracted trial. Accordingly, in larger interest, FIR 61/2010 under Sections 420/34 IPC registered at Police
Station Hari Nagar and consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Dasti.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
DECEMBER 15, 2010 ga
2010:DHC:9300
#
% 15.12.2010
Present: Mr. Viyek Singh and Mr. Pratik Batta, Advs. for the petitioners along with petitioners are in person.
Mr. Arvind Gupta, APP for the State alogn with ASI Prehlad
Singh, P.S. Hari Nagar.
Counsel for respondent no.2 (appearance not given) along with respondent no. 2 in person.
+ Crl. M.A. 18566 72010
*
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
+ Crl. M.C. 3884/2010
A collaboration agreement was entered between respondent no.2 and petitioner no. 1 with regard to construction to be raised on the plot bearing BE 233, Gali No. 4, Hari Nagar, New Delhi owned by petitioner no.l. It appears that some disputes arose between respondent no. 2 and petitioner no. 1 regarding compliance of terms of the agreement. This led to registration of the FIR in question, on the complaint of respondent no.2. Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are wife and son of petitioner no. 1. •Now, with the intervention of common friends and family members, petitioner no.l and respondent no.2 have settled their dispute amicably. Terms of settlement have been recorded in compromise/settlement deed 26^ November, 2010 (Annexure P2 page
2010:DHC:9300
V nos. 23 to 29). Respondent no.2, who is present in Court, has no objection if the FIR is quashed.
Since both the parties have settled their dispute amicably, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served in compelling the parties to continue to litigate a protracted trial. Accordingly, in larger interest, FIR 61/2010 under Sections 420/34 IPC registered at Police
Station Hari Nagar and consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Dasti.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
DECEMBER 15, 2010 ga
2010:DHC:9300
JUDGMENT