Naveen Chaudhary v. Govt Of NCT Of Delhi & ORS.

12# $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4071/2016 and Crl. M.A. No.16994/2016 (stay) NAVEEN CHAUDHARY ..... Petitioner Represented by:

Mr. Samrat Nigam and Mr.

Gaurav Kakar, Advocates with petitioner in person.

versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

..... Respondents Represented by:

Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State ACP Rajiv Midha, EOW.

Ms. Anjali Chopra and Mr.

Ramesh Kumar, Advocates for respondent No. 2 and 3 with respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in person.

Respondent No.4 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 18.11.2016 By the present petition the petitioner, who is one of the accused along with respondent No.4 seeks quashing of FIR No. 24/1994 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B IPC registered at PS Connaught Place, New Delhi on the complaint of Respondent No.2 and the proceedings pursuant thereto on the ground that the parties have settled the matter. Learned APP for the State on instructions from the Investigating Officer submits that in the above noted FIR petitioner and the respondent No.4 are the only accused and the respondent No. 2 the complainant/ victim

and respondent No.3 the other victim.

The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are present in Court and are identified by the learned counsel and the Investigating Officer state that they have settled the matter with the petitioner and the respondent No.4 in terms of agreement dated 19th September, 2016, copy whereof is enclosed as Annexure-P6 at pages 48 to 51 of the present petition. They state that in terms of the settlement Respondent No.2 has received a Manager's Cheque bearing No.029498 dated 24th October, 2016 drawn on HDFC Bank, Mandakini, New Delhi of ₹82.50 lakhs in full and final settlement in all the demands in respect of property bearing Plot No.5, DLF Qutab Enclave, Phase-I, Road A-31, Guru Gram, Haryana and the respondent No.2 now have no claim whatsoever on the property in question. They also state that they will abide by the terms of settlement arrived at between the parties and do not want to pursue the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.

Petitioner who is present in Court and is identified by the learned counsel affirms the statement of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and state that he will abide by the terms of the Compromise Deed dated 19th September, 2016.

Respondent No.4 had allegedly written the Deed, dispute in respect whereof arose in the above noted FIR. Petitioner No.1 and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also pray that the FIR qua respondent No.4 be also quashed. Considering the fact that the parties have settled the matter including the civil dispute between them, no useful purpose will be served in continuance of the trial and it is in the interest of justice that the above noted

FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed. There is no legal impediment in quashing the FIR in question.

Consequently, FIR No.

24/1994 under Sections 420/467/ 468/471/120B IPC registered at PS Connaught Place, New Delhi and proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed. Parties have signed this order sheet in acknowledgment of their statements made before this Court.

The petition and the application are disposed of. Order dasti. MUKTA GUPTA, J.

NOVEMBER 18, 2016 'vn'