Rajbir Singh vs State & Anr.
2008 Latest Caselaw 1369 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                          Crl . M.C. No. 880/2007


%                           DATE OF DECISION : 18th AUGUST, 2008

      RAJBIR SINGH                                       ..... Petitioner

                           Through:   Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate
                  versus


      STATE & ANR.                                       ....Respondents

                           Through:   Mr. Sunil Kapoor, Advocate for the
                                      Respondent No.2.
                                      SI Ashish Dalal, PS Kalkaji.



CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may                        No.
   be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                       No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?       No.

                           JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J: (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 1164/2006, registered

with PS Kalkaji, New Delhi, under Sections 420 and 120 B IPC.

2. Briefly stated, the material facts of this case are that the Respondent

No. 2, Shri Sukhwant Singh, lodged a complaint against the Petitioner, Shri

Ashok Kwatra and Smt. Rajni Kwatra. According to the Respondent No. 2,

he had paid an amount of Rs. 2 lacs to the Petitioner for arranging a 'Visa' to

travel to Korea. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the impugned FIR

has been registered against the Petitioner and other two accused.

3. On 17th March, 2007, the Petitioner and the complainant compromised

the matter. In accordance with the said settlement the Petitioner had initially

paid a sum of Rs. 1 lac by cash and the final instalment of Rs. 1 lac was also

paid on 3rd April 2007, as recorded by this Court in its order.

4. The counsel for the Respondent No. 2 is present in Court and he

reiterates that his client has settled the matter with the Petitioner and he has

no objection if the FIR filed by him qua the Petitioner is quashed.

5. The IO, Mr. Ashish Dalal, is present and he states that there is another

case filed by the cousin brother of Respondent No. 2, namely, Shri Raju

Singh against the Petitioner. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has

handed over in Court a copy of the settlement executed between the

Petitioner and Shri. Raju Singh, in terms of which Shri Raju Singh has also

been paid a sum of Rs. 4 lacs in full and final settlement. The IO also

confirms the said settlement.

6. In view thereof, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be

subserved if the present FIR is quashed qua the Petitioner alone.

Accordingly, the FIR No. 1164/2006 under Section 420 and 120 B IPC

registered with PS Kalkaji, New Delhi, qua the Petitioner is quashed.

7. It is made clear that the proceedings against the other accused will

continue.

8. The present petition is allowed in the above terms.

9. Order dasti.

August 18, 2008                                             MANMOHAN, J.
rb