Delhi High Court
Ajay Kumar Jain vs State & Anr. on 2 February, 2011
Author: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI.
% Crl. M.C. 4219/2006
+ Date of Decision: 2nd February, 2011
# AJAY KUMAR JAIN ...Petitioner
! Through: Ms. Savita, Advocate
Versus
$ STATE & ANR. ...Respondents
^ Through: Mr. Sanjay Lau, APP
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment? (No)
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? (No)
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? (No)
JUDGMENT
P.K.BHASIN, J(Oral):
The petitioner was booked for the commission of the offences punishable under
Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal code vide FIR No. 121/2002 registered at
Mukherjee Nagar Police Station on 14th March, 2002 at the instance of respondent no.
2-complainant M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Limited. The petitioner was booked in four
other cases also of similar nature vide different FIRs registered at Mukherjee Nagar
Police Station. The petitioner had got financed motor vehicles from the said
complainant. The complainant Company filed criminal complaints in the Court of the
concerned Metropolitan Magistrate which directed the police to register FIRs against
the petitioner-accused herein. In compliance of that direction different FIRs included
the FIR of the present case came to be registered by the police. During the
investigation stage, the complainant and the petitioner-accused arrived at some
amicable settlement in respect of the dues of the complainant Company under various
hire-purchase agreements including the one in respect of which the present case was
registered.
After the settlement between the complainant and the petitioner five petitions
were filed by the petitioner for quashing of the FIRs registered against him. All the five
petitions at one stage were being taken up together and the complainant Company had
entered appearance in all the cases through its counsel who had confirmed on 27 th
September, 2007 that there had been a settlement between the complainant Company
and the petitioner herein. Then after hearing the submissions from both the sides all the
cases were reserved for judgment. Vide common judgment dated 22nd November, 2007
four petitions of the petitioner were allowed and it appears that due to some mistake the
present case was left out and the file of the present case was sent to the Registry along
with other disposed of petitions. Subsequently the Registry on noticing that the present
petition had not been disposed of listed the matter before the Court and thereafter
notices were ordered to be issued to the counsel for the parties. Though counsel for the
petitioner as well as the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State appeared in response
to the notices there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant Company despite
service of notice upon its counsel.
Since already a statement on behalf of the complainant Company stands made
in this case also by its counsel confirming the settlement with the petitioner and also
agreeing for quashing of the FIR of the present case, the FIR of the present case also
deserves to be quashed as has already been done in respect of the other four cases
against the petitioner vide common judgment dated 22nd November, 2007 in Criminal
M.C. No. 4205/2006, Criminal M.C. No. 4206/2006, Criminal M.C. No. 4209/2006
and Criminal M.C. No. 4220/2006.
This petition is accordingly allowed and FIR No. 121/2002 registered against
the petitioner at Mukherjee Nagar Police Station on 14th March, 2002 is also quashed.
P.K. BHASIN, J
FEBRUARY 02, 2011/pg
