Ram Avtar Sharma & Ors. vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 2551 Del

    * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                  Date of Decision: March 25, 2015

+     CRL.M.C. 1216/2015 & Crl. M.A.No.4473-74/2015
      RAM AVTAR SHARMA & ORS.               ..... Petitioners
                  Through: Mr. Karan Veer Tyagi, &
                           Mr. Ashok Kumar Shahi,
                           Advocates

                         versus

      STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.            ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional
                               Public Prosecutor for respondent-
                               State with SI Madan
                               Mr. Saurabh Seth, Advocate for
                               respondents No. 2 & 3.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                         JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

Quashing of FIR No. 98/2013, under Sections 420/467/468/471/ 120-B of the IPC, registered at police station Sagarpur, Delhi is sought on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding of of 5th June, 2014 (Annexure-P-4).

Notice.

Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and Mr. Saurabh Seth, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 2 & 3.

Mr. Navin Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

Crl.M.C.No.1216/2015 Page 1 respondent-State submits that investigation in this case is at a crucial stage and so, this petition is strongly opposed.

Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 submits that the settlement in terms of Memorandum of Understanding of 5th June, 2014 (Annexure-P-4) has been already acted upon and the complainant party i.e. respondents No. 2 & 3 have no objection to quashing of the FIR in question.

Attention of this Court has been drawn to the affidavits of respondents No. 2 and 3 and it is submitted by learned counsel for respondents that Director of respondent -Company is present in the Court and even he has no objection to the quashing of FIR in question.

Since investigation in this case is at a crucial stage, therefore, this Court is not inclined to invoke its extra inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings arising out of FIR in question.

This petition and applications are accordingly disposed of while refraining to comment upon merits of the case.

                                                         (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                           JUDGE

MARCH 25, 2015
r




Crl.M.C.No.1216/2015                                                  Page 2