High CourtsSingle Bench

Vaibhav Aggarwal & Anr vs State & Anr

Delhi High Court · Decided on 2 August 2018 · Citation: (2018) 08 DEL CK 0031

HON’BLE JUDGES
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 381, 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 506II
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
CRL.M.C. 3626 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

18 paragraphs · 331 words

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

1.

Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.651/2008 under Sections 406/420/465/467/468/469/471/381/506/34 at Police Station Malviya Nagar. After the

filing of the chargesheet, the Trial Court in terms of order on charge dated 24.05.2017 has framed charge against the petitioner No.2 under Section

420/34 of the IPC and the petitioner No.1 under Section 420/381/506-II/34 of the IPC.

2.

Petitioner No.1 was an employee of respondent No.2 and the subject FIR was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2 alleging theft of a

laptop and a scanner.

3.

Learned counsels for the parties submit that the parties have settled their disputes before the Mediation Centre, Saket Court on 08.03.2018. As per

the settlement, the petitioner had agreed to pay a total amount of Rs.2 lakhs. The said amount is stated to have been paid. Respondent No.2 company

is represented through its Managing Director Mr.Saikat Ghosh, who is also the complainant in the FIR. He submits that he has settled with the

petitioner and also received the settlement amount. Status report does not point out that there are any adverse antecedents of the petitioner.

4.

Respondent No.2 is present in court in person, represented by his counsel. He submits that he has settled the dispute with the petitioners and does

not wish to press the complaint against them any further.

5.

In view of the fact that the disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.2 have been settled, 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.

6.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed. FIR No.651/2008 under Sections 406/420/465/467/468/469/471/381/506/34 at Police Station Malviya

Nagar and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are, accordingly quashed.

7.

Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.Â