Rinku @ Sh. Jai Pal & Others vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Another
2008 Latest Caselaw 1123 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       Crl.M.C.No.2293/2008

%                 Date of decision : 23.07.2008


Rinku @ Sh. Jai Pal & Others                       ....... Petitioners
                        Through:        Mr.B.S. Chauhan, Advocate.

                                 Versus

State (NCT of Delhi) & Another                       ......... Respondents
                        Through :       Mr.R.N. Vats, APP for the State
                                        along with SI Sudama Sharma,
                                        P.S. Rohini.
                                        Mr.Diwakar Sinha, Advocate for
                                        NDPL.

CORAM :-
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

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


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

+ Crl.M.A. No.8537/2008 in Crl.M.C. No.2293/2008

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

The application is disposed of.

Crl.M.C. No.2293/2008 & Crl.M.A. No.8536/2008

Issue notice. Mr.Vats accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1

and Mr.Sinha accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2. Learned

counsel for petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.2 state that the

matter has been settled between the parties and pursuant to the

settlement the amount due to respondent No.2 has been paid by

petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel contends that since the matter

has been settled, no useful purpose shall be served in continuing the

proceedings pursuant to FIR NO.1100/2007 under Section 135/150 of

the Electricity Act registered at Police Station Rohini.

It is also contended that continuing the proceeding shall be waste

of public money and it shall be in the interest of justice if the said FIR is

quashed against petitioners 1 to 3.

Considering the facts and totality of circumstances, since the

matter has been settled between the respondent No.2 and petitioner

Nos.1 to 3, no useful purpose shall be served in continuing the FIR

NO.1100/2007 under Section 135/150 of the Electricity Act registered

at Police Station Rohini. It is also in the interest of justice to quash the

said FIR. Therefore, the FIR and all proceeding emanating therefrom

against the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are quashed against petitioner Nos.1 to

3.

With these directions, the petition and the pending application

are disposed of. Dasti.

July 23, 2008                                       ANIL KUMAR, J.
'Dev'