High CourtsSingle Bench

Mr. Kapil Dua And Another vs State And Another

Delhi High Court · Decided on 11 September 2018 · Citation: (2018) 09 DEL CK 0065

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 419, 420, 423, 506
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.4590 Of 2018
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

24 paragraphs · 391 words

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

Crl.M.A. 31760/2018 (exemption)

Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions

Crl.M.C.4590/2018

1.

Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.207/2015 under Sections 419/420/423/506/120B IPC, Police Station Maurya Enclave.

2.

The allegations against the petitioners are that the petitioners had alleged to transfer certain properties based on a notarized documents and it

subsequently transpired that petitioner had no right, title or interest to the properties sought to be sold, complainant had paid a sum of Rs.6 lacs to the

petitioner. Â

3.

Parties have settled their disputes through the process of mediation held before Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini District Courts, Delhi dated

30.08.2018 has been executed between the parties. As per the settlement, the petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.15,50,000/- to respondent

no. 2. A sum of Rs.10,00,000/- has already been paid. The balance sum of Rs.5,50,000/- has been paid to the respondent No.2 by way of

Demand Draft No.578897 dated 10.09.2018 drawn on Canara Bank.

4.

Respondent No.2 is present in person, represented by counsel and is identified by the Investigating Officer. He submits that he has settled

disputes with the petitioners and does not wish to press charges against the petitioners and prosecute the complaint any further.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in terms of order dated 23.07.2015 and 14.09.2015 by which the bail was granted, petitioners had

deposited FDRs in the sum of Rs.6 lacs each, with the Trial Court, as a condition for grant of bail.

6.

In view of the fact that the parties have resolved their disputes and respondent No. 2 does not wish to press his complaint, continuation of criminal

proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored;

securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. It would be expedient to quash the subject FIR and the consequent proceedings

emanating therefrom.

7.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed. FIR No.207/2015 under Sections 419/420/423/506/120B IPC, Police Station Maurya Enclave and the

consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are, accordingly quashed. Â

8.

The sureties furnished by the petitioners for grant of bail be discharged and directed to be released to the petitioners. Â

9.

Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master. Â