Citibank N.A. vs State Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 5489 Del

$-28

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      CRL.M.C. 3752/2011

%             Judgment delivered on:15th November, 2011

       CITIBANK N.A.                              ..... Petitioner
                             Through : Mr. R.S. Suri, Sr. Adv. with
                             Mr. Rahul Malhotra, Adv.

                     versus

       STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS.               ..... Respondent

                             Through : Mr. Navin Sharma, APP.
                             Mr. R. Vasudevan, Spl. POA.
                             Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Adv. for R2 & R3


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

    1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
       may be allowed to see the judgment?                      NO
    2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                       NO
    3. Whether the judgment should be reported
       in the Digest?                                           NO

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

CRL. M.A. 17845/2011

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CRL. M.C. 3752/2011

1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR

No. 227/2009, a case under Section 406/409 Indian Penal

Code, 1860.

2 Further submits that the matter has been settled

between the parties vide compromise deed dated

11.11.2011.

3 The compromise deed has been executed between

petitioner and Mr.R.Vasudevan s/o late Shri V.Raghavan,

Special Power of Attorney holder of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

4 Admittedly, the said Power of Attorney has been

executed on 15.04.2009.

5 Learned APP for State has raised the objection that the

special power of attorney has been executed on 15.04.2009

and the compromise has been effected on 11.11.2011.

Therefore, the aforementioned attorney has no locus in the

case.

6 Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 submits

that the matter has already been compromised and even

during the trial, the said attorney has been pursuing the

case, therefore, the compromise deed has been executed

between the parties.

7 Further submits, in the said Power of Attorney the

respondent Nos.2 & 3 had authorised the attorney to enter

into any compromise, take amount and close the matter on

their behalf, if required.

8 Learned APP for State submits that the Government

Machinery has been mis-used and the precious time of the

court has been consumed, heavy costs shall be imposed

before quashing the FIR.

9 Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners has on

instructions come forward to donate an amount of Rs.1 lacs

towards welfare fund.

10 I appreciate this gesture of petitioner.

11 Keeping the Compromise Deed into view and the

submission of the learned counsel for the respondent, I

quash the FIR No. 227/2009, P.S. Connaught Place, under

Section 406/409/420/120-B/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and

emanating proceedings thereto.

12 I further direct, payment of Rs.1 lacs be deposited in

favour of Lady Noyce School for Deaf, Delhi Gate, Behind

Ferozshah Staduim, Delhi within a period of two weeks.The

proof of payment be placed on record.

13 The Principal of the School is directed to keep the

amount in FDR initially for a period of 03 years and interest

accrued thereupon shall be utilized for the wellbeing of

children of School.

14 Criminal M.C. 3752/2011 is disposed of accordingly.

15 Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to

complainant/ respondent Nos.2 & 3, for information.

16 Dasti.

SURESH KAIT,J

NOVEMBER 15, 2011 j