Delhi High Court
Padam Singh & Ors vs State (Govt Of Nct Delhi) & Anr on 11 September, 2017
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 2256/2017
PADAM SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.Badri Dass, Adv. with
Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Adv. along with
petitioners in person.
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Avi Singh, ASC for State
with SI Prakash, P.S. Kalkaji.
Mr.Dhananjai Jain, Adv. for R-2 with
Mr.Vipul Jain, Director of Respondent
No.2/Complainant, in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
ORDER
% 11.09.2017
1. Mr.Vipul Jain, Director of Respondent No.2, appears in person.
He is duly identified by the IO SI Prakash.
2. The petitioners have 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.PC')
for quashing of the FIR bearing No.485/2013, registered on
24.10.2013 against them with Police Station Kalkaji, South East
District, Delhi, under Section 408/34 IPC, on the complaint of
respondent No.2.
3. Status report has been handed over in Court. The same is taken
on record.
4. Learned ASC through the IO submits that the charge sheet has
so far not been filed.
5. Pursuant to the registration of the said FIR, the petitioners No.1
to 5 had filed their different cases before the Labour Court,
(Karkardooma Courts), Delhi, being L.I.R. No.192/2015 of
Mohit Kumar, L.I.R. No.193/2014 of Gaurav Sharma, L.I.R.
No.458/2015 of Amit Bhardwaj, L.I.R. No.403/2015 of Padam
Singh and L.I.R. No.473/2015 of Neeraj Saini.
6. The petitioners and respondent no.2 submit that after
registration of the said FIR, they had amicably resolved and
settled their all disputes by way of Memorandum of Settlement
dated 21.07.2017. The copy of the same is placed on record.
7. Mr.Vipul Jain, the Director of the respondent no.2 company
states that the respondent no.2 has amicably resolved and settled
the disputes with the petitioners. He submits that the
respondent no.2 does not want to pursue the said FIR. He
submits that the said FIR may be quashed.
8. Learned ASC points out that pursuant to a notice issued to
M/s.Sony India Ltd., it was responded that they did not
debit/charge the complainant company with regard to the parts
replaced by the employees of the complainant
company/respondent no. 2. M/s. Sony India Ltd. had also
informed the IO that they had issued a warning letter dated 3rd
October, 2012 to the complainant company not to indulge in
such unethical activities. Mr.Vipul Jain, the Director of the
respondent no.2, confirms having received the warning letter
dated 3rd October, 2012 from M/s. Sony India Ltd. Learned
ASC submits that after issuance of warning letter, M/s.Sony
India Ltd. does not want to pursue the matter.
9. Since the parties have amicably settled their all disputes, no
fruitful purpose would be served in further pursuing with the
said FIR. Hence, to secure ends of justice, the FIR bearing
No.485/2013, registered on 24.10.2013 with Police Station
Kalkaji, South East District, Delhi, under Section 408/34 IPC
and proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.
10. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
11. Dasti.
VINOD GOEL, J.
SEPTEMBER 11, 2017/jitender
