Delhi High Court
Jai Bhagwan vs State (Govt Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 6 September, 2017
$~28 & 29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 2079/2017
JAI BHAGWAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sanoj Kumar Mishra, Advocate
along with petitioner in person.
versus
STATE (GOVT NCT OF DELHI) &ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.R.S. Kundu, ASC for State with
Mr.Bhagat Singh, Advocate along with ACP
Dharam Pal, DIU, Delhi.
Respondent no. 2 in person.
+ W.P.(CRL) 2080/2017
JAI BHAGWAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sanoj Kumar Mishra, Advocate
along with petitioner in person.
versus
STATE (GOVT NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.R.S. Kundu, ASC for State with
Mr.Bhagat Singh, Advocate along with ACP
Dharam Pal, DIU, Delhi.
Respondent no. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
ORDER
% 06.09.2017
1. Status reports have been filed.
2. Respondent No.2 Mr.Vinod Kumar Sharma in W.P. (CRL.)
No.2079/2017 and the respondent No.2 Mr. Surender Kumar in the
W.P. (CRL.) No. 2080/2017 appear in person. Both of them are duly
identified by the IO ACP Dharam Pal.
3. In writ petition, being W.P. (CRL.) No.2079/2017, the petitioner has
invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing of the FIR bearing
No.144/2017, registered against him on 27.04.2017, with Police
Station Palam Village (South-West District), Delhi under Sections
420/120B IPC on the complaint of respondent no.2.
4. In writ petition, W.P. (CRL.) No.2080/2017, the petitioner seeks
quashing of FIR No.141/2017, registered on 26.04.2017 against him,
with Police Station Palam Village (South-West District), Delhi under
Sections 420/120B IPC on the complaint of respondent no.2.
5. As per the allegations in the FIRs, the petitioner has alleged to have
received Rs.7,65,000/- from the respondent no. 2, who is none else
but his sister's son-in-law. The amount was taken by the petitioner
from the respondent no. 2 for the purpose of investment in some
housing scheme. Subsequently, he refused to return the money to the
respondent no.2. Consequently, the above said FIRs were registered.
6. The parties had amicably resolved and settled all their disputes by
way of MOU/settlement deed dated 26.05.2017. The original
settlement deed/Memorandum of Understanding is already on record.
7. Pursuant to the settlement, the petitioner has paid Rs.7,65,000/- to the
respondent no. 2 by way of two cheques. The respondent No.2 in
W.P. (CRL.) 2079/2017 and respondent No.2 in W.P. (CRL.)
2080/2017 submit that they have amicably resolved and settled all
their disputes with the petitioner without any force or coercion. They
submit that the cheques given to them have been encahsed in their
respective accounts. They submit that they do not want to pursue
their respective FIRs. They submit that the said FIRs may be
quashed.
8. In the circumstances, since both the parties have amicably resolved
and settled their all disputes by way of compromise deed dated
26.05.2017, no fruitful purpose would be served in pursuing the said
FIRs. In the circumstance, to secure ends of justice, the FIR bearing
No.144/2017, registered on 27.04.2017 under Sections 420/120B IPC
and FIR No.141/2017, registered on 26.04.2017 under Sections
420/120B IPC with Police Station Palam Village (South-West
District), Delhi and proceedings arising out of both FIRs are hereby
quashed.
9. Both the petitions are disposed of accordingly.
10. Dasti.
VINOD GOEL, J.
SEPTEMBER 06, 2017
"shailendra"
