Sukhvindra Singh Rathore And Anr. vs State And Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3440 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          CRL. M.C. 1507/2010

                                                          Decided on 22.07.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :

SUKHVINDRA SINGH RATHORE AND ANR.                    ..... Petitioners
                   Through: Group Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, Advocate
                   with Mr. Roshan Chapagain, Advocate with
                   petitioners No.1 and 2 in person.


                      versus


STATE AND ANR.                                                 ..... Respondents
                           Through: Mrs. S. Kohli, APP for the State
                           Mr. Ravinder Manu, Advocate with Mr. Baljit Singh
                           Kohli, Manager of the respondent No.2/company.

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. (Oral)

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482

of the Cr.PC seeking quashing of FIR No.326/2008 lodged by the respondent

No.2/company against the petitioners under Sections

406/420/467/468/471/120B IPC, registered with Police Station: Darya Ganj,

Distt. Central Delhi.

2. In the complaint, the respondent No.2/complainant accused

petitioner No.1 and his father, Dr.Himmat Singh Rathore of non-payment of

dues payable by various parties for taking vehicles on hire-purchase from

the complainant, at the recommendation of the petitioner No.1 and his

father. It is further alleged that the petitioners had projected themselves as

financers to the hirers and received payments towards the hire installments

in the name of the complainant/company for depositing the amounts in its

account, which they failed to do. Pursuant to lodging of the aforesaid FIR,

investigation was carried out by the police authorities and thereafter, the

prosecution filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners before the

Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts. In the said proceedings, the

petitioner No.1 sought regular bail, which was granted in his favour. The

petitioner No.2 was given anticipatory bail from the High Court.

3. Now, the parties state that during the pendency of the aforesaid

proceeding, they have settled their dispute amicably in terms of the MOU

dated 19.06.2009 (Annexure-B). As per the settlement arrived at between

the parties, the petitioners have agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1 crore in

installments to the respondent No.2/complainant, in return of which, the

respondent No.2/complainant has agreed not to oppose the prayer made by

the petitioners for quashing of the FIR, subject matter of the present

petition.

4. Counsels for the parties state that the entire sum of Rs.1 crore

has since been received by the respondent No.2/complainant from the

petitioners. The petitioners are present in Court. So is Shri Baljit Singh

Kohli, the authorized representative of the respondent No.2/company, who

hands over a copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors of the

respondent No.2/company held on 01.10.2008 authorizing him to appear on

behalf of the company, which is taken on the record. The parties appear to

have arrived at the aforesaid settlement of their own free will and volition

and without any undue coercion or influence from any quarter. Learned APP

also states that she has no objection to the aforesaid settlement being

accepted by the Court and the prayer made in the petition being allowed,

subject to the petitioners being burdened with costs.

5. There appears no legal impediment in allowing the present

petition. However, considering the fact that on account of the petitioners,

the legal machinery of the State has been set into motion, which has

resulted in incurring of unnecessary expenditure and wastage of time, while

quashing FIR No.326/2008 registered by the respondent No.2/company

against the petitioners and allowing the present petition, it is directed that

the petitioners shall pay costs of Rs.20,000/-, out of which Rs.10,000/- shall

be deposited with the Delhi High Court Lawyers' Welfare Fund and the

remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be deposited with the Delhi Police

Welfare Fund. Needful shall be done within two weeks. Copy of proof of

deposit of the aforesaid costs shall be furnished to the learned APP for the

State within two weeks.

6. The petition is disposed of. File be consigned to the record room.

                                                             (HIMA KOHLI)
JULY   22, 2010                                                 JUDGE
rkb