Full Text
Translation output
$-45 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 1702/2018 «&CRL.M.A. 6155/2018
PRADEEP KUMAR &ANR ' Petitioner
Through Mr. Yogesh Goel, Adv. with petitioners in person.
CRL.M.C. 1702/2018 «&CRL.M.A. 6155/2018
PRADEEP KUMAR &ANR ' Petitioner
Through Mr. Yogesh Goel, Adv. with petitioners in person.
VERSUS
THE STATE GOVT OF NCt OF DELHI &ANR..... Respondent
Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State with ASI Babu Ram PS Hauz Qazi, "
District Central, Delhi.
R2 in person. . -
Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State with ASI Babu Ram PS Hauz Qazi, "
District Central, Delhi.
R2 in person. . -
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
09.04.2018 Vide the present petition, the petitioner no. 1 Pradeep Kumar
Aggarwal s/o Late Sh. Kanti Prasad and the petitioner no. 2 Chirag
Aggarwal s/o Sh. Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal seek quashing of FIR NO. 70/16, registered at PS Hauz Qazi, Central District under Section
448/380/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 submitting to the effpct that a settlement has since been arrived at between the parties and all disputes between them amicably settled.
The Investigating Officer of the case-present in the Court' has identified the petitioners as being the accused arrayed in the said FIR and has identified the respondent no. 2 as being the complainant thereof The proofofthe identity ofthe petitioners and ofthe respondent no. 2 in the
CRL.M.C. 1702/2018 page 1 of3
2018:DHC:8435
. ••>--- u form ofphotocopies oftheir Aadhar Cards produced by them are Ex.CWl/A to Ex. CWl/C respectively, originals ofwhich have been seen and returned.
The respondent no.2 in her examination on oath by the Court has testified to having sworn her affidavit annexed to the petition as Ex.CW2/A and has also testified to having signed .the settlement document dated
24.06.2017 arrived at between the parties, which is on record as Ex.CW2/B.
He further states that in terms of the settlement arrived at between him and the petitioners, a total sum ofRs.13,50,000/- has been paid to him by the petitioner and now no claims ofher left now in respect ofproperty bearing no. 1225/1226, Gali Kashmiriyan,.Kucha Pati Ram, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi -
6 against the petitioners nor is he in possession thereof. Jriter alia the respondent no. 2states that he has studied till standard 12"^ and he is dealing in electrical goods for the last 22 years. There appears no reason to disbelieve that the respondent no'. 2 has niade his statement voluntarily ofhis own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter and all disputes between theparties have been amiably settled.
Learned APP for the State submits that in the circumstances of the case, there is no opposition to the prayer made by the petitioner seeking quashing ofthe FIR in question in view ofthe settlement arrived at between the parties.
On a consideration of the deposition of the respondent no. 2, it is considered appropriate to allow the prayer of the petitioners made in-the petition seeking quashing of the FIR in question, for maintenance of peace and harmony between the petitioners and the respondent no. 2 to put a
09.04.2018 Vide the present petition, the petitioner no. 1 Pradeep Kumar
Aggarwal s/o Late Sh. Kanti Prasad and the petitioner no. 2 Chirag
Aggarwal s/o Sh. Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal seek quashing of FIR NO. 70/16, registered at PS Hauz Qazi, Central District under Section
448/380/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 submitting to the effpct that a settlement has since been arrived at between the parties and all disputes between them amicably settled.
The Investigating Officer of the case-present in the Court' has identified the petitioners as being the accused arrayed in the said FIR and has identified the respondent no. 2 as being the complainant thereof The proofofthe identity ofthe petitioners and ofthe respondent no. 2 in the
CRL.M.C. 1702/2018 page 1 of3
2018:DHC:8435
. ••>--- u form ofphotocopies oftheir Aadhar Cards produced by them are Ex.CWl/A to Ex. CWl/C respectively, originals ofwhich have been seen and returned.
The respondent no.2 in her examination on oath by the Court has testified to having sworn her affidavit annexed to the petition as Ex.CW2/A and has also testified to having signed .the settlement document dated
24.06.2017 arrived at between the parties, which is on record as Ex.CW2/B.
He further states that in terms of the settlement arrived at between him and the petitioners, a total sum ofRs.13,50,000/- has been paid to him by the petitioner and now no claims ofher left now in respect ofproperty bearing no. 1225/1226, Gali Kashmiriyan,.Kucha Pati Ram, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi -
6 against the petitioners nor is he in possession thereof. Jriter alia the respondent no. 2states that he has studied till standard 12"^ and he is dealing in electrical goods for the last 22 years. There appears no reason to disbelieve that the respondent no'. 2 has niade his statement voluntarily ofhis own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter and all disputes between theparties have been amiably settled.
Learned APP for the State submits that in the circumstances of the case, there is no opposition to the prayer made by the petitioner seeking quashing ofthe FIR in question in view ofthe settlement arrived at between the parties.
On a consideration of the deposition of the respondent no. 2, it is considered appropriate to allow the prayer of the petitioners made in-the petition seeking quashing of the FIR in question, for maintenance of peace and harmony between the petitioners and the respondent no. 2 to put a
CRL.M.C. 1702/2018 page 2 of3 quietus to the litigation between them as all disputes between them have been amicably settled as they all live inthe same locality.
In view thereof, it is considered appropriate to allow the prayer made by the petitioners seeking quashing ofFIR No. 70/16, registered at PS Hauz
Qazi, Central District under Section 448/380/411/34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner. In view thereof the FIR No. 70/16, registered at PS
Hauz Qazi, Central District under Section 448/380/411/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against petitioner no. 1 Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal s/o Late Sh.
Kanti Prasad and the petitioner no. 2 Chirag Aggarwal s/o Sh. Pradeep
Kumar Aggarwal are quashed.
• the petition is disposed of ^
ANU MALHOTRaT^ APRIL 09, 2018
In view thereof, it is considered appropriate to allow the prayer made by the petitioners seeking quashing ofFIR No. 70/16, registered at PS Hauz
Qazi, Central District under Section 448/380/411/34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner. In view thereof the FIR No. 70/16, registered at PS
Hauz Qazi, Central District under Section 448/380/411/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against petitioner no. 1 Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal s/o Late Sh.
Kanti Prasad and the petitioner no. 2 Chirag Aggarwal s/o Sh. Pradeep
Kumar Aggarwal are quashed.
• the petition is disposed of ^
ANU MALHOTRaT^ APRIL 09, 2018
CRL.M. C. 1702/2018 page 3 of3
X'
X'
JUDGMENT