Delhi High Court
Ashok Kumar Bagdi & Ors vs State & Anr. on 25 November, 2019
$~57
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 25.11.2019
+ CRL.M.C. 5987/2019
ASHOK KUMAR BAGDI & ORS
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sujeet Kumar Mishra, Mr.
Thakur Ankit Singh, Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State with SI Anil
Kumar PS BHD Nagar, Delhi.
Respondent no.2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
CRL. M.A. 41048/2019
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application is disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 5987/2019
3. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby
quashing FIR No. 46/2016 dated 01.02.2016 , registered at PS Baba Haridas
Nagar and all other proceedings emanating therefrom.
4. Notice issued.
5. Notice is accepted by learned APP for the State.
6. The learned Additional public prosecutor has opposed the present
petition and submits that the complainant had filed the complaint in the year
2009 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for lodging the FIR against the petitioner
and in the year 2016 FIR was lodged. Thus, the Government machinery
came into force in the year 2009 itself, due to the offence committed by the
petitioners. A lot of time and money has been wasted. He further submits
that if this court is inclined to quash FIR, heavy cost be imposed upon the
petitioner.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has come
forward and submits that the petitioner no.1, 2 and 4 are ready to pay an
additional amount of ₹.50,000/- each in favour of the complainant.
8. It is not in dispute that the complainant has already paid an amount of
₹.2,70,000/- in the year 2008 for purchasing the piece of land and now in
2019, the settlement has taken place on an amount of ₹.3,80,000/-. As stated
by the complainant, who is present in court, she borrowed an amount of
₹.2,70,000/- on interest and thereafter constructed a wall upon the land.
Moreover, she went pillar to post from 2009 onwards to get the justice, thus
spent lot of money in litigation.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions
submit that the petitioners are ready to pay further ₹.50,000/- each in favour
of the complainant/respondent no.2.
10. Accordingly the petitioners, as mentioned above, are directed to pay
an amount of ₹.50,000/- each to the complainant within a period of four
weeks from today. In view of the above, the FIR No. 46/2016 is hereby
quashed.
11. As stated in the petitioner, Petitioner No.4 is in custody. Accordingly,
the Jail Superintendent is directed to release the petitioner No.4 forthwith.
12. I hereby made it clear that payment to the complainant shall be made
by way of Demand Draft and receipt of the same shall be deposited with the
IO of this case.
13. I further make it clear that if the amount is not paid as agreed by the
aforesaid petitioners within time, the State would be at liberty to move the
application to take action against the defaulter as per the law.
14. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the Jail Superintendent
for compliance.
15. The petition stands disposed of.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 25, 2019
pkb
