Rajesh Dhawan @ Rajesh Kumar ANR v. The State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi & ORS
$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4498/2017 RAJESH DHAWAN @ RAJESH KUMAR ANR ..... Petitioners Through:
Ms.Jyoti Gupta, Advocate versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through:
Mr. Izhar Ahmad, APP for State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
O R D E R
% Vide the present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR No.392/2016, under Sections 451/380/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, in relation to which the proceedings on the record before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (North), Rohini Courts, dated 29.3.2016 and 4.4.2016 in the form of statements of the respondents No.2 and 3, certified copies thereof have been placed on record being Ex.CW-2/A and Ex.CW-3/A, indicate that the proceedings were pending under Sections 451/380/411/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860, (in which the mention of Section 308 in Ex.CW-2/A is apparently a typographical error as indicated on a perusal of the FIR), submitting to the effect that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties inter se and all claims and disputes have been amicably resolved. CRL.M.C. 4498/2017
The Investigating Officer of the case is present in Court and has identified the petitioners No.1 and 2, namely, Rajesh Dhawan @ Rajesh Kumar and Pradeep Dhawan as being the accused and the respondents No.2 and 3, namely, Arvind Kumar and Kailash Mehto as being the complainant of the said FIR.
The proceedings dated 24.3.2016 and 4.4.2016 before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Court, as conducted through Ex.CW-2/A and Ex.CW-3/A, certified copies of statements of the Respondent No.2 and the joint statement of the Respondent No.2 & 3 respectively, indicate that the disputes between the parties have been settled for a consideration of Rs.1,40,000/- and that a sum of Rs.70,000/- was to be paid at the time of quashing of the FIR to be shared equally by the respondents No.2 and 3. On an examination of the respondents on Oath by the Court, the respondents No.2 and 3 have testified that they have received a sum of Rs.35,000/- each in their favour vide banker's cheque Nos.152954 in favour of respondent No. 2, Arvind Kumar, and banker's cheque No.152955 in favour of the respondent No.
3, Kailash Mehto, both dated 7.5.2018 drawn on the State Bank of India, in Court today. The photocopies of the same have been placed on record being Ex.CW2/B and Ex.CW-3/C. Both the respondents No.2 and 3 state that there are now no claims left against the petitioners and thus they do not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR in view of the settlement arrived at between them and the petitioners No.1 and 2.
CRL.M.C. 4498/2017
The offences punishable under Sections 380/411 Indian Penal Code, 1860 are compoundable and the other offence which is not compoundable is Section 451 Cr.P.C. As all the claims between the parties have been settled in view of the settlement arrived at between them, it is considered appropriate to put a quietus to the litigation between them and to Sections 451/380/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860, in relation to which the charge sheet is indicated to have been filed under Sections 451/411 /34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners No.1 and 2, namely, Rajesh Dhawan @ Rajesh Kumar and Pradeep Dhawan, are thus quashed accordingly. The petition is disposed of.
MAY 10, 2018/sv CRL.M.C. 4498/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
Item No. 11 Crl. M.C. 4498/2017 RAJESH DHAWAN @ RAJESH KUMAR & ANR. Vs. STATE & ORS.
CW-1 SI PREM PAL SHARMA, POLICE STATION MUKHERJEE NAGAR ON S.A.
I identify the petitioners No.1 and 2, namely, Rajesh Dhawan @ Rajesh Kumar and Pradeep Dhawan as being the accused and the respondents No.2 and 3, namely, Arvind Kumar and Kailash Mehto, as being the complainant of the FIR No.392/2016, under Sections 451/380/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Mukherjee Nagar present in the Court today. Proofs of identities of the petitioners No.1 and 2 and the respondents No. 2 and 3 in the form of their original Adhaar Cards have been produced. The photocopies of the same qua the petitioners No.1 and 2 being Ex.CW-1/A and Ex.CW-1/B and of the respondents No.2 and 3 being Ex.CW-1/C and Ex.CW-1/D respectively (Originals seen & returned.). RO & AC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
Item No. 11 Crl. M.C. 4498/2017 RAJESH DHAWAN @ RAJESH KUMAR & ANR. Vs. STATE & ORS.
CW-2 ARVIND KUMAR S/O SHAMBHU MEHTO AGED 35 YEARS, H.NO. 1/1, B BLOCK, BHAJANPURA, DELHI.
ON S.A.
I have studied till standard 10th and run a Juice Rehri. My affidavit annexed to the petition in support of the averments made in the petition bears my signatures thereon at points A and B on Ex.CW-2/C. I was the tenant of Property No.715, shop no.5, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi with the petitioners No.1 and 2, , namely, Rajesh Dhawan @ Rajesh Kumar and Pradeep Dhawan as being the land lords. I have vacated the said premises in terms of my statement dated 29.3.2016 in relation to the instant FIR No.392/2016 under Sections 451/380/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Mukherjee Nagar with my signatures visible at Point 'A' on Ex.CW-2/A.
In terms of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioners a total sum of Rs.1,40,000/- was to be paid to me by the petitioners No.1 and 2 of which Rs.70,000/- has been paid previously and the balance sum of Rs.70,000/- is to be paid to me and the co-complainant, i.e., the respondent No.3, namely, Kailash Mehto, to be shared equally by the respondent No.2 and 3 in the amount of Rs.35,000/- each. I have received a banker's cheque
dated 7.5.2018 for a sum of Rs.35,000/- in my favour drawn on SBI Bank today in the Court. The photocopy of the same is EX.CW-2/B. I have now no problems with the petitioners No.1 and 2. In view of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioners No.1 and 2, I do not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners No.1 and 2 seeking quashing of FIR No.392/2016 under Sections 451/380/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Mukherjee Nagar nor do I want the petitioners No.1 and 2 to be punished in relation thereto. I have stated so voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter. RO & AC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
Item No. 11 Crl. M.C. 4498/2017 RAJESH DHAWAN @ RAJESH KUMAR & ANR. Vs. STATE & ORS.
CW-3 KAILASH MEHTO S/O RAMESHWAR MEHTO AGED 48 YEARS, R/O H.NO.3, MAYUR VIHAR PHASE III, DELHI AND ALSO AT SHOP NO. 4/10, NIRANKARI COLONY, DELHI. ON S.A.
I have studied till standard 10th and run a Juice Rehri. My affidavit annexed to the petition in support of the averments made in the petition bears my signatures thereon at points A and B on Ex.CW-3/b. I was the tenant of Property No.715, shop no.5, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi with the petitioners No.1 and 2, , namely, Rajesh Dhawan @ Rajesh Kumar and Pradeep Dhawan as being the land lords. I have vacated the said premises in terms of my statement dated 4.4.2016 in relation to the instant FIR No.392/2016 under Sections 451/380/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Mukherjee Nagar with my signatures visible at Point 'A' on Ex.CW-3/A.
In terms of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioners a total sum of Rs.1,40,000/- was to be paid to me by the petitioners No.1 and 2 of which Rs.70,000/- has been paid previously and the balance sum of Rs.70,000/- is to be paid to me and the co-complainant, i.e., the respondent No.2, namely, Arvind Kumar, to be shared equally by the respondent No.2 and 3 in the amount of Rs.35,000/- each. I have received a banker's cheque
dated 7.5.2018 for a sum of Rs.35,000/- in my favour drawn on SBI Bank today in the Court. The photocopy of the same is EX.CW-3/C. I have now no problems with the petitioners No.1 and 2. In view of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioners No.1 and 2, I do not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners No.1 and 2 seeking quashing of FIR No.392/2016 under Sections 451/380/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Mukherjee Nagar nor do I want the petitioners No.1 and 2 to be punished in relation thereto. I have stated so voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter. RO & AC