Sivalingam Nadesan vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 3358 Del

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                     W.P.(CRL) 558/2010

                                  Date of Decision : 19.7.2010

IN THE MATTER OF
SIVALINGAM NADESAN                          ..... Petitioner
                          Through : Mr. Kapil Sankhla, Adv. with
                                    petitioner in person.

                     Versus

STATE                                   ..... Respondent

Through : Mr. Saleem Ahmed,ASC for the State with SI Sunil Kumar, PS Dwarka.

Mr. Rajendran, proxy counsel for Mr. Rajesh Kr. Verma, Adv.

for R-2 with Mr. Siva Rama Krishna, Authorized Signatory of R-2.

CORAM

HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

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                   No

                 reported in the Digest?

HIMA KOHLI, J. ( O R A L )

1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for quashing of the FIR

No.11/2010 lodged by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner under

Section 420 IPC with PS Sector 23, Dwarka.

2. It is stated in the petition that in the year 2001, the

petitioner had joined the complainant company as a Technical Director.

However, in July 2001, the petitioner sent his resignation to the

respondent No.2 company and being a citizen of Malaysia, left for

Malaysia on the same date after surrendering his employment Visa to

the immigration authorities at IGI Airport. Thereafter, on an

apprehension that some persons extended threats to the college where

his son was studying in Delhi, the petitioner lodged a complaint with

the Police Commissioner, Delhi Police on 31.12.2009. In the

meantime, the respondent No.2 is also stated to have filed a complaint

against the petitioner on 11.1.2010, which has culminated in the

aforesaid FIR No.11/2010.

3. The parties state that in the meantime, with the help of

friends and well wishers, they have arrived at a negotiated settlement,

terms and conditions of which are contained in the Compromise Deed

10.7.2010 enclosed with the paper book. In the aforesaid settlement,

the parties have stated that upon making inquiries, they have realized

that neither party is at fault and that there has been some

misunderstanding between them at the instance of some mischief

makers and that neither party wants/wishes to proceed further with

any case against each other.

4. The petitioner is present in the Court and so is Mr. Siva

Rama Krishna, Authorized Signatory of the respondent No.2 company.

The Board Resolution, authorizing Mr. Siva Rama Krishna to confirm all

the acts of the respondent No.2, is dated 3.11.2009 and is enclosed

with the Index of documents dated 16.7.2010. Both the parties

confirm having entered into the aforesaid settlement of their free will

and volition.

5. Status Report dated 19.7.2010 is handed over by the

learned ASC for the State, which is taken on the record. Learned ASC

for the State confirms that both the parties have arrived at a

negotiated settlement by way of a Compromise Deed 10.7.2010, a

copy of which is also enclosed with the Status Report.

6. Learned ASC for the State submits that the State has no

objection to the prayer made in the petition being allowed. However,

he submits that in view of the fact that the respondent No.2 company

has put into motion the legal machinery of the State, which has

resulted in incurring of unnecessary expenditure and wastage of time,

it be put to terms for seeking the relief in the present petition.

7. In view of the aforesaid statement made by the parties and

the compromise arrived at between them, as reduced into writing in a

Compromise Deed dated 10.7.2010, and also in view of the fact that

the prayer made in the present petition is not opposed by the learned

ASC for the State, there appears no legal impediment in accepting the

compromise, which is stated to have been arrived at between the

parties of their own free will and volition and without any undue

influence or coercion from any quarters whatsoever.

8. The petition is allowed in view of the aforesaid

compromise arrived at between the parties. Parties shall remain

bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement. FIR No.11/2010

and all proceedings arising out therefrom stand quashed, subject to

payment of costs of Rs.20,000/- by the respondent No.2/company to

be deposited in the name of the Registrar General of this Court,

towards the Juvenile Justice Fund, within a period of two weeks. Copy

of proof of deposit of the aforesaid costs shall be furnished to the

learned ASC for the State within two weeks.

The petition is disposed of.

File be consigned to the record room.

HIMA KOHLI,J

JULY 19, 2010 sk