Mr. Sandeep Mittal, Advocate. v. State & anr. ...

1. Whetiier tiie Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SUNIL GAUR, I. (Oral) CrI. M.A. No. 6148/2009 (Exemption)

1. Allowed subject to just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of. Crl. M.C. No. 1689/2009 ^ Page | 1 2009:DHC:10734 CrI. M.C. No. 1689/2009 & CrI, M.A, No. 6147/2009

1. Quashing of FIR No. 248/2007 under Section 409/420/34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi is sought in this petition on the ground that the subject matter of the FIR is a commercial dispute, which stands settled vide compromise deed (Annexure B).

2. Notice.

3. Mr. Amit Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of Respondent - State and Mr. Sanjay Abbot, accepts notice on behalf of Respondent NO. 2 and states that Respondent No. 2 is present in person and her affidavit is on record at page 12 of the paper book giving no objection to the quashing of the FIR in question, as it is stated that the subject matter of this FIR stands already settled with the Petitioner.

4. It is pointed out that Respondent No. 2 is also present in the court and copy of her passport is on record. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 identifies Respondent No. Crl. M.C. No. 1689/2009 ^ ¥^e\2 2 as the first informant of the FIR in question. He has also placed on record certified copy of the compromise deed, which was filed alongwith application in the civil proceedings and it is stated by learned counsel for the parties that this compromise was accepted and was acted upon in the civil proceedings as well as in the cross FIR No.246/2008 registered in Police Station Defence Colony. It is also pointed out that the cross FIR No. 246/2008 already stands quashed by this court vide order (Annexure D).

5. Respondent No. 2 present in the court states that she is a US citizen and is residing in USA and is a hotelier by profession and she states that the subject matter of this FIR stands mutually and amicable settled with the Petitioner and she has no grievance against the Petitioner and prays for quashing of FIR in question.

6. In the case of "Jagdish Chanana and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ann, AIR 2008 SC 1968, the proceedings in a cheating case were quashed by the Apex Court by observing as under:- Crl. M.C. No. 1689/2009 Page | 3 "The fact that the compromise has indeed been recorded is admitted by all sides and in terms of the compromise the disputes which are purely personal in nature and arise out of commercial transactions, have been settled in terms of the compromise with one of the terms of the compromise being that proceedings pending in court may be withdrawn or compromised or quashed, as the case may be. In the light of the compromise, it Is unlikely that the prosecution will succeed in the matter: We also see that the dispute is a purely personal one and no public policy is involved in the transactions that had been entered into between the parties. To continue with the proceedings, therefore, would be a futile exercise."

7. Considering tine fact that this commercial dispute, which is a subject matter of the FIR in question, has been settled between the parties, I see no purpose in continuing the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question. Resultantly, FIR No. 248/2007 under Section 409/420/34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom stands quashed. Crl. M.C. No. 1689/2009 ~ ^|4

8. With aforesaid directions, this petition as well as pending application, if any, stands disposed of. Sunil Gaur, J. May 26, 2009 pkb y