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
16 paragraphs · 260 wordsK.Somashekar, J
Learned counsel Ms. Shruthi S.P. for petitioners appears before court physically and represents the learned counsel Shri Vinaya Keerthy M, who is
on record. Learned HCGP for Respondent No.1 is present before court physically. Notice has been duly served on Respondent No.2 / complainant,
but he remains absent.
Learned counsel for petitioners has filed a memo dated 05.07.2021 seeking to withdraw the petition as not pressed. The third petitioner / Rajendra
Singh Chauhan, S/o. Omprakash has subscribed his signature to the said memo dated 5.7.2021 which is filed in this matter. In this memo, it is
specifically stated that the matter has been amicable settled among the parties. Therefore, the petitioners in this petition seek to withdraw the petition
as not pressed.
However, only third petitioner has subscribed his signature to the memo seeking withdrawal. But counsel for petitioners who is present before court
physically submits that there was a consent extended by Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein for settlement of the issues amicably. This submission of the
learned counsel is placed on record.
Keeping in view the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is deemed proper to consider the submission of the counsel that the
matter has ended in a settlement.
Hence, the petition is dismissed as not pressed.
However, counsel for petitioners is directed to file a consent memo of the remaining Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 seeking to withdraw the petition in view
of an amicable settlement arrived at among the parties, for the purpose of reference.