Milap Dugar & Anr v. State

ANIL KUMAR, J. *

Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.2 state that the matter has since been resolved.

The respondent No.2/complainant is also present. It is contended by the counsel for the parties that since the matter has been resolved, no useful purpose shall be served in continuing with the proceedings pursuant to FIR CRL.M.C.No.720/2007

No.1197/2006 dated 31.12.2006 under Section 420 registered at Police Station Dwarka against the petitioners. Let the statement of respondent No.2 be recorded, who is identified by his counsel. Statement of respondent No.2 has been recorded who states that he has settled with the petitioners and does not want to continue the proceedings pursuant to the above-said FIR which was registered on his complaint which was filed by the complainant on account of some confusion. Learned counsel for the parties states that no useful purpose shall be served in continuing the proceedings pursuant to the said FIR in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. It shall also be in the interest of justice in case the said FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.Sharma, also has no objection to quashing of the said FIR. Consequently, in the totality of facts and circumstances, the FIR No.1197/2006 dated 31.12.2006 under Section 420 registered at Police Station Dwarka and all the proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners are quashed. The petition is disposed of. Dasti.

August 07, 2008

ANIL KUMAR, J. 'Dev'

CRL.M.C.No.720/2007 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C.No.720/2007 % Date of Decision: 07.08.2008 Milap Dugar and Another …. Petitioners Through Mr.R. Mehrotra, Advocate Versus The State & Another …. Respondent Through Mr.Amit Sharma, APP for the State along with SI Vidyadhar Singh, P.S. Dwarka. Mr.G. Kabra, Advocate for respondent No.2 along with respondent No.2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?