High Court of DelhiCRL.M.C./5028/2017

Lalit Verma v. The State ( NCT Of Delhi ) & ORS.

2017-12-06Hon'Ble Mr. Justice A.K. Pathak2 pages

$~41 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 5028/2017 LALIT VERMA ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. B.S. Rana, Ms. Babita Ahlawat, Mr. Satyam Sixodia and Mr. Manish Awasthi, Advs.

versus THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI ) & ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. M.S. Oberoi, APP for State with SI Ravi Kumar, P.S. North Rohini.

Respondent no.2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

% 06.12.2017 On the oral prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner coaccused Devender Kumar Gulia is impleaded as respondent no.3. Amended memo of parties be filed during course of the day. Respondent no.2 is present in Court and has been identified by SI Ravi Kumar of police station North Rohini. Respondent no.2 submits that disputes arose between him and petitioner and respondent no. 3 over some commercial transactions.

He further submits that he has now settled the matter with the petitioner and respondent no.3 vide Memorandum of Settlement dated 20th November, 2017 of his own free will and without any undue force, pressure or coercion.

Petitioner has paid `6 lacs to the

respondent no.2 towards the settled amount through a demand draft, photocopy whereof has been placed on record.

Respondent no.2 submits that he has no objection in case FIR is quashed qua petitioner and respondent no. 3. In para 4 of the Memorandum of Settlement also, it has been mentioned that first party (respondent no.2/complainant) has no objection in case FIR is quashed against second party (petitioner) and Devender Kumar Gulia (respondent no.3).

Keeping in mind that disputes arose on account of commercial transactions and that complainant/respondent no.2 has settled the matter with the petitioner and respondent no. 3, inasmuch as, settlement amount stands paid, in the interest of justice, FIR No. 232/2017 under Sections 420/120B/34 IPC registered at police station North Rohini and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against both the accused persons, that is, petitioner and respondent no. 3. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Dasti.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

DECEMBER 06, 2017 ga