Anuj Rajpal vs State & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 1063 Del

$~25
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+        CRL.M.C. 571/2012

%               Judgment delivered on:15th February, 2012

         ANUJ RAJPAL                        ..... Petitioner
                                 Through : Mr. Varun Sharma, Adv.

                        versus


         STATE & ORS                        ..... Respondent
                                 Through : Ms. Navin Sharma, APP for State.
                                 Mr. Rajender Bahtia, Adv. for R3.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

CRL. M.A. 2017/2012 (Exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.

+        CRL. M.C. 571/2012

1        Notice issued.
2        Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of Respondents No.1
and 2.
3        Mr. Rajender Bhatia, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of
respondent No.3.
4        Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide FIR No. 356

dated 24.05.1999, a case under Sections 63/68 A of Copy Right Act was registered against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent No.3 at P.S. Kotwali, Delhi.

5 It is further submitted that the parties have amicably settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR.

6 Petitioner No.1 has handed over a Banker's Cheque of Rs.20,000/- to respondent No.3 in pursuant to the above settlement. 7 Respondent No.3 is personally present in the court today. He is duly identified by his ld. Counsel Mr. Rajender Bhatia. 8 Learned counsel for respondent No.3 on instructions submits that the matter has amicably been settled between the parties and the respondent No.3 is no more interested to pursue the case further. He has no objection if the present FIR is quashed. 9 Learned APP on the other hand submits that the case is pending for Prosecution Evidence before the trial court. 10 Learned APP further submits that the case pertains to the year 1999 and in the process, Government Machinery has been used and precious time of the court has been consumed, therefore, heavy costs should be imposed upon the petitioners. 11 Though, I find force in the submissions made by learned APP for State but keeping in view the poor financial position to petitioner No.1, I refrain imposing costs upon him. 12 Keeping in view the above discussion and statement of respondent No.3 and in the interest of justice, I quash FIR No. 356/1999 registered at P.S. Kotwali, Delhi and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.

13 Criminal M.C. 571/2012 is allowed.

14    Dasti.
CRL. M.A. 2016/2012

In view of above, this application is disposed of being infructuous.

SURESH KAIT, J

FEBRUARY 15, 2012 j