Full Text
Translation output
'
#14
14.12.2010
Present: Mr.Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Bharat Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner along with petitioner in person.
Mr.R.N.Vats, APP for the State/respondent No.1.
Mr.Hemant Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.2 along with respondent No.2 in person.
+Cri.M.C. No.3457/2010
This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.100/2000 under Sections 406/420/468/471 IPC registered at P.S. Kirti Nagar on the complaint of respondent No.2.
Reason given for the quashing is that the FIR is the result of a business transaction between the parties and that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner and respondent No.2.
Petitioner is present. He is identified by his counsel Mr.Bharat Sharma.
Respondent No.2 is also present. She is identified by her counsel
Mr.Hemant Chaudhary.
Respondent No.2 submits that she has entered into a compromise with the petitioner of her own accord without any inducement or threat and she has received a sum of ~11,00,000/- in full and final settlement of all her claims. She states that now there is no dispute left between them.
Therefore, in the interest of harmonious relationship between her and the petitioner, she does not want any action against the petitioner on her FIR
2010:DHC:9241 and she has no objection if the FIR as well as the proceedings arising out of the same is quashed.
Learned APP submits that taking into account that parties have amicably settled the matter, State has no objection if the FIR No. 100/2000
P.S. Kirti Nagar and the proceedings arising out the same are quashed.
Learned APP submits that since the FIR is the result of
• misunderstanding in a business transaction and parties have amicably settled the matter, I find that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping
' the matter alive. Accordingly, FIR No.100/2000 under Sections
406/420/468/471 IPC registered at P.S. Kirti Nagar Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
The petition is disposed of.
DECEMBER 14, 2010 ks
~
(AJIT BHARIHOKE)
JUDGE
2010:DHC:9241
#14
14.12.2010
Present: Mr.Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Bharat Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner along with petitioner in person.
Mr.R.N.Vats, APP for the State/respondent No.1.
Mr.Hemant Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.2 along with respondent No.2 in person.
+Cri.M.C. No.3457/2010
This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.100/2000 under Sections 406/420/468/471 IPC registered at P.S. Kirti Nagar on the complaint of respondent No.2.
Reason given for the quashing is that the FIR is the result of a business transaction between the parties and that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner and respondent No.2.
Petitioner is present. He is identified by his counsel Mr.Bharat Sharma.
Respondent No.2 is also present. She is identified by her counsel
Mr.Hemant Chaudhary.
Respondent No.2 submits that she has entered into a compromise with the petitioner of her own accord without any inducement or threat and she has received a sum of ~11,00,000/- in full and final settlement of all her claims. She states that now there is no dispute left between them.
Therefore, in the interest of harmonious relationship between her and the petitioner, she does not want any action against the petitioner on her FIR
2010:DHC:9241 and she has no objection if the FIR as well as the proceedings arising out of the same is quashed.
Learned APP submits that taking into account that parties have amicably settled the matter, State has no objection if the FIR No. 100/2000
P.S. Kirti Nagar and the proceedings arising out the same are quashed.
Learned APP submits that since the FIR is the result of
• misunderstanding in a business transaction and parties have amicably settled the matter, I find that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping
' the matter alive. Accordingly, FIR No.100/2000 under Sections
406/420/468/471 IPC registered at P.S. Kirti Nagar Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
The petition is disposed of.
DECEMBER 14, 2010 ks
~
(AJIT BHARIHOKE)
JUDGE
2010:DHC:9241
JUDGMENT