High Court of DelhiW.P.(CRL)/3671/2016

Gulsahn Manchanda v. The State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi) & ANR.

2017-01-20Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Vipin Sanghi2 pages

$~9.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 3671/2016 GULSAHN MANCHANDA ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. V.K. Khanna, Advocate.

versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Ms. Mallika Parmar, Advocate for Ms.Kamna Vohra, ASC along with SI Abhishek Kumar, PS - I.P. Estate, for the State.

Respondent No.2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

O R D E R

% 20.01.2017 The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek quashing of FIR No.657/2016 under Section 420/ 468/ 471 IPC registered at PS - I.P. Estate on the complaint of respondent No.2.

The petition is premised on a settlement arrived at between the parties. Under the settlement, the petitioner is obliged to deliver vacant physical possession of premises No.3082, Mori Gate, Delhi - 110006, to respondent No.2. On the other hand, respondent No.2 is obliged to make payment of Rs.1 Lakh to the petitioner.

The petitioner and respondent No.2 are both present in Court. Respondent No.2 has produced his driving license as proof of his identity. The same has been shown to the Court and returned. The petitioner has delivered three keys, which are stated to be in respect of the aforesaid premises to the respondent No.2. The petitioner, who is present in Court, states that the said premises is vacant and respondent No.2 may enter the said property without any let or hindrance from any quarters by using the keys delivered by him. Consequently, the possession of the said property stands delivered to respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 shall be free to deal with the same in any manner he likes. Respondent No.2 has delivered a cheque bearing No.000025 dated 23.12.2016 drawn on HDFC Bank, to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 undertakes that the said cheque shall be honoured upon presentation. Respondent No.2 states that he does not wish to pursue his complaint any further.

The aforesaid settlement shall bind the respective parties. Accordingly, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding further with the FIR in question and the proceedings emanating therefrom. The same are hereby quashed.

VIPIN SANGHI, J JANUARY 20, 2017 B.S. Rohella