Parikshit Sawhney v. State & ANR.

$~34 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 439/2020 PARIKSHIT SAWHNEY ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Sunil K. Mittal and Mr. Kshitij Mittal and Mr. Sushant Bali, Advs.

with petitioner in person.

versus STATE & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Shivam Saharan, Adv. for Ms.

Nandita Rao, ASC with Mr. Amit Peswani, Adv. for R-1 SI Radhey Shyam, P.S.EOW.

Mr. Anil Sharma and Mr. Arun Bali, Adv. for R-2 with R-2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR

O R D E R

% 13.02.2020 Crl. M.A.No. 3299/2020 (for exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 439/2020 1.

Issue notice.

Learned counsel for the State accepts notice. Counsel for respondent No.2 appears and accepts notice. 2.

This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.4/2016, under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station- Economic Offences Wing, Delhi, and all

proceedings emanating therefrom.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that on the complaint of respondent No. 2 above said FIR was registered against the petitioner in respect of an agreement dated 27.2.2012 executed between the petitioner and respondent no.2.

4.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the trial, with the intervention of family and friends, the parties have settled the matter amicably in terms of MOU dated 24.11.2018 for a sum of Rs. 37.50,000/-. Today, payment has been made by way of demand drafts bearing nos. 512508 for a sum of Rs. 5 lacs, 512696 for a sum of Rs. 8 lacs, 512514 for a sum of Rs. 10 lacs, 512523 for a sum of Rs. 5 lacs and 512691 for a sum of Rs. 9 lacs to the respondent no.2. . Copy of the MOU is also placed on record. 5.

Respondent no.2 is present in Court and identified by the IO. The respondent No.2 submits that he has settled her disputes with the petitioner. He further submits that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

6.

Learned counsel appearing for ASC for the State submits that in view of the settlement between the parties, the State has no objection if the FIR in question be quashed.

7.

Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the case pending. It will be nothing but abuse of the process of law.

Consequentially, this petition is allowed, subject to costs of ₹10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee

within two weeks from today. Upon placing on record the proof of deposit of costs within a week thereafter and handing over their copies to the Investigating Officer, FIR No.4/2016, under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station- Economic Offences Wing, Delhi, and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed.

8.

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. Dasti. RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J FEBRUARY 13, 2020/ib