Full Text
Translation output
C
#42
18.11.2010
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Bhardwaj, Advocate with Mr. C.M. Verma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for the State.
Mr. Davinder N. Grover, Advocate for respondent No.2.
+Crl.M.C. No.3573/2O1O
This is a petition seeking quashing of FIR No.104/07 under Sections
420146814671471-1208 IPC P.S. Preet Vihar registered on the complaint of respondent No.2. Reason for seeking quashing is that the petitioners and respondent No.2 have amicably settled the matter and now there is no dispute left between them.
Briefly stated, allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioners from the drop box of the bank somehow managed to get hold of cheque No.664348 of {95,000/- issued by respondent No.2 in favour of his wife Reeta Dhamija for transfer of amount from his.account to the account of Reeta Dhamija. Thereafter, the petitioner forged said cheque by substituting his name by deleting the name of wife of respondent No.2
Reeta Dhamija as beneficiary and withdrew the amount. The complainant aggrieved of the payment of cheque amount to the petitioner despite of the same being forged by the petitioner, filed a petition against the Bank in District Consumer Forum.
From the aforesaid allegations, it is apparent that respondent No.2 is notthe only victim.in this case, butthe Bank concerned is also a victim.
The allegations against the petitioner are of serious nature and the
2010:DHC:8709
?-' offence alleged to have been committed by him is an offence against the society. !
Under these circumstances, I do not find any justification to quash the FlR. Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(AJrT BHARTHOKE)
JUDGE
F NOVEMBER 18, 2Ot O.
2010:DHC:8709
#42
18.11.2010
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Bhardwaj, Advocate with Mr. C.M. Verma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for the State.
Mr. Davinder N. Grover, Advocate for respondent No.2.
+Crl.M.C. No.3573/2O1O
This is a petition seeking quashing of FIR No.104/07 under Sections
420146814671471-1208 IPC P.S. Preet Vihar registered on the complaint of respondent No.2. Reason for seeking quashing is that the petitioners and respondent No.2 have amicably settled the matter and now there is no dispute left between them.
Briefly stated, allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioners from the drop box of the bank somehow managed to get hold of cheque No.664348 of {95,000/- issued by respondent No.2 in favour of his wife Reeta Dhamija for transfer of amount from his.account to the account of Reeta Dhamija. Thereafter, the petitioner forged said cheque by substituting his name by deleting the name of wife of respondent No.2
Reeta Dhamija as beneficiary and withdrew the amount. The complainant aggrieved of the payment of cheque amount to the petitioner despite of the same being forged by the petitioner, filed a petition against the Bank in District Consumer Forum.
From the aforesaid allegations, it is apparent that respondent No.2 is notthe only victim.in this case, butthe Bank concerned is also a victim.
The allegations against the petitioner are of serious nature and the
2010:DHC:8709
?-' offence alleged to have been committed by him is an offence against the society. !
Under these circumstances, I do not find any justification to quash the FlR. Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(AJrT BHARTHOKE)
JUDGE
F NOVEMBER 18, 2Ot O.
2010:DHC:8709
JUDGMENT