Full Text
Translation output
\
39\
TI o/o L5.1 1.2010
Present: Mr. D. Hasija & Mr. S.N. Pandey, Advs. for the
Petitioners.
Mr. Arvind Gupta, APP for the State with Inspector
Shiv Singh, EOW/IO.
Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, Adv. for respondent No. 2 with respondent No. 2 in person.
J Crl.
M.A. No. 17346 '^O1O (exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
Crl. M.C. No. 3549/2O10
On the complaint of respondent No. 2, FIR in question was registered against the petitioners. It was alleged that the petitioners had taken a sum of T2,50,000/-from respondent No. 2 in ord.er to arrange a Visa in her favour. Now, petitioners and respondent No. 2 have settled their disputes, inasmuch as petitioners have refunded the amount of T2,50,000l- to respondent
No. 2. Respondent No. 2, wi:,o is present in the Court today, admits having entered into compromise with the petitioners. Respondent
No. 2 states that she has no objection in case FIR in question is
( r a
2010:DHC:8512
, 1-
\a
. NOVEMBER 15, 2OLO rb quashed.
Keeping in mind the above facts and in the larger interest, I quash the FIR No. 59 r /2oos under sections 406 /42o / so6 /34 rp}
P.S. Malviya Nagar registered at police station Malviya Nagar and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom, subject to the condition that each of the petitioners shall deposit a cost of
. T15,000/- each with the Advocates welfare Fund, Delhi High court.
Receipt evidencing deposition of cost be filed in the Registry within ten days.
Application is dismissed as infructuous. r
2010:DHC:8512
39\
TI o/o L5.1 1.2010
Present: Mr. D. Hasija & Mr. S.N. Pandey, Advs. for the
Petitioners.
Mr. Arvind Gupta, APP for the State with Inspector
Shiv Singh, EOW/IO.
Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, Adv. for respondent No. 2 with respondent No. 2 in person.
J Crl.
M.A. No. 17346 '^O1O (exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
Crl. M.C. No. 3549/2O10
On the complaint of respondent No. 2, FIR in question was registered against the petitioners. It was alleged that the petitioners had taken a sum of T2,50,000/-from respondent No. 2 in ord.er to arrange a Visa in her favour. Now, petitioners and respondent No. 2 have settled their disputes, inasmuch as petitioners have refunded the amount of T2,50,000l- to respondent
No. 2. Respondent No. 2, wi:,o is present in the Court today, admits having entered into compromise with the petitioners. Respondent
No. 2 states that she has no objection in case FIR in question is
( r a
2010:DHC:8512
, 1-
\a
. NOVEMBER 15, 2OLO rb quashed.
Keeping in mind the above facts and in the larger interest, I quash the FIR No. 59 r /2oos under sections 406 /42o / so6 /34 rp}
P.S. Malviya Nagar registered at police station Malviya Nagar and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom, subject to the condition that each of the petitioners shall deposit a cost of
. T15,000/- each with the Advocates welfare Fund, Delhi High court.
Receipt evidencing deposition of cost be filed in the Registry within ten days.
Application is dismissed as infructuous. r
2010:DHC:8512
JUDGMENT