Pradeep Rana vs State (Nct Of Delhi) And Another
2008 Latest Caselaw 1446 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         CRL.M.C.No.1174/2007

%                      Date of Decision: 26.08.2008

Pradeep Rana                                          .... Petitioner

                       Through Mr.S.Arif, Advocate.

                                Versus

State (NCT of Delhi) and Another                      .... Respondents

                       Through Mr.R.N. Vats, APP for the State.
                               Mr.Punit K.Bhalla, Advocate for the
                               respondent No.2.
                               ASI Kanhaiya Lal, P.S.Rajouri Garden.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

1.   Whether reporters of Local papers may be               YES
     allowed to see the judgment?
2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?                  NO
3.   Whether the judgment should be reported in              NO
     the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

This is a petition for quashing of FIR No.14/2006 under Section

420/406 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Rajouri

Garden. The petitioner has contended that he had purchased a car

make Hyundai Santro bearing registration No.DL 4CP 0483 from the

loan amount disbursed by the respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 had

an express lien on the said vehicle. Since the amount of loan was not

paid and the vehicle was not traceable, the complaint was filed by the

respondent No.2 leading to registration of FIR No.14/2006 under

Section 420/406 of Indian Penal Code Police Station Rajouri Garden.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the matter

has since been settled with the respondent No.2 and in settlement an

amount of Rs.2 lakhs has been paid to the respondent No.2 bank in full

and final settlement of all the claims of respondent No.2 against the

petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 admits that

there has been a settlement between the respondent No.2 and the

petitioner and in pursuance to the settlement between the parties an

amount of Rs.2 lakhs has been paid to the respondent No.2 bank in

satisfaction of all the claims of respondent No.2 against the petitioner

with respect to the agreement for purchase of car make Hyundai Santro

bearing registration No.DL 4CP 0483.

In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the parties contend

that no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings

pursuant to FIR No.14/2006 under Section 420/406 of Indian Penal

Code registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden.

The counsel for the parties, therefore, also contend that the said

FIR be quashed in the facts and circumstances.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.Vats, in the facts and

circumstances, has also no objection to quashing of FIR No.14/2006

under Section 420/406 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station

Rajouri Garden against the petitioner and all the proceedings

emanating therefrom.

In the totality of facts and circumstances and in the interest of

justice, the FIR No.14/2006 under Section 420/406 of Indian Penal

Code registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden and all the proceedings

emanating therefrom against the petitioner are quashed.

The petition is disposed of.

Dasti.

August 26, 2008                                 ANIL KUMAR, J.
'k'