Parveen Khanna v. State ( NCT Of Delhi) & ANR

$~19 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 993/2015 PARVEEN KHANNA ..... Petitioner Through :Mr. Vikas Arora and Mr. K.K. Arora, Advs.

versus STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents Through :Mr. Sanjay Lao, ASC with ACP Mahesh Thola for respondent no. 1 Mr. Dheeraj Manchanda, Adv. for respondent no. 2 with respondent no.

2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

% 27.05.2015 Crl. M.A. Nos. 7103-04/2015 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Applications are disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 993/2015 FIR no. 1051/2004 was registered at Police Station Sultan Puri on the complaint of respondent no. 2 under Sections 420/406/467/468/471/120-B IPC. Investigations are stated to be still going on. It appears that 11 years have gone by. During the investigation, certain other persons have come

forward and complained that they were also deceived by the petitioner. Respondent no. 2 is present in Court and submits that he has settled the matter with petitioner and has received the settled amount, thus, has no grievance against the petitioner and is not willing to continue the FIR. A perusal of order dated 14th September, 2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi also makes it clear that the persons, who had come forward during the investigation, namely, Diksha Suri, Sunil Kumar, Amit Gupta, IRS Bedi, Shammi Kapoor, Arun Goel and Rohit Aggarwal had even personally appeared before the trial court and they had made a statement that they had settled the matter with petitioner, inasmuch as 13 affidavits were filed along with two receipts of Nisha Suri and Sunil Monga.

In view of the statement made by the said persons that they have settled the matter, petitioner was granted bail. Keeping in mind the fact that petitioner has settled the matter with respondent no. 2 and other persons, who had surfaced during the investigation, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping them entangled in the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, FIR no.

therefrom are quashed.

Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti. A.K. PATHAK, J.

MAY 27, 2015 rb