Savita Singhal v. State of NCT of Delhi

ORDER %

17.10.2012 Disputesinvolvedin boththe FIRs, whichare subjectmatterofthese petitions, had been registered on the directions of the Metropolitan Magistrate,Delhi under Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are in respectof a JantaFlat bearingno. 243, GroundFloor, Block-F, Pocket - 5, Rohini. Complainants in the above FIRs, that is, Savita Singhal and PushpinderSingh claimedthemselvesto be the owners of the aforesaid flat, based on the chain of documents in their power and possession. FIRNo. 330/2011 under Sections380/420/466/451/471/120-B was registeredat Police StationK.N. Katju Marg on the complaintof Savita Singhal;whereas FIR No. 332/2011under Sections420/468/471/120-BIPC has been registered in the same Police Station on the complaint of PushpinderSingh. In the FIR, SavitaSinghalallegedthat the documentson which Pushpinder Singh was placing reliance were forged and fabricated documents. She further alleged that Pushpinder Singh along with other petitionersin W.P. (Crl.)No. 391/2012had forciblyoccupiedthe flat. Now, Savita Singhal, Pushpinder Singh and other petitioners in W.P. (Crl.) No. 391/2012have settledtheir disputes amicablyon the terms and conditionsas stipulatedin the CompromiseDeed/MOUdated S''" January, 2012. PushpinderSinghhas givenup his claim overthe said flat, inasmuch as, petitionerno. 4 has alreadyexecuteda registeredSale Deed in favourof Savita Singhal. PushpinderSingh and Savita Singhal, who are present in y Courtand have beenidentifiedby the InvestigatingOfficer,submitthatthey have no objection in case both the FIRs are quashed. Keeping in mind the settlementarrived at between the parties,-no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the criminal proceeding pending. Thus, in the interestofjustice,FIR No. 330/2011 under Sections 380/420/466/451/471/120-B and FIR No. 332/2011 under Sections 420/468/471/120-B IPC both registered at Police Station K.N. Katju Marg andthe consequentproceedingsemanatingtherefromare quashed. Petitions are disposed of in the above terms. Dasti

PATHAK, J. OCTOBER 17, 2012 rb

$-20/21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 390/2012 SAVITA SINGHAL Petitioner Through :Mr. Daviender Hora, Adv. with petitioner in person. Versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. ... Respondents Through :Mr. Saleem Ahmed, ASC with Ms. Charu Dalai, Adv. and lO/SI Arun Dagar, P.S. K.N. Katju Marg for respondent no. 1 Mr. Sikander Khan, Adv. for respondent no. 2 with respondent no. 2 in person. AND + W.P.(CRL) 391/2012 PUSHPINDER SINGH & ORS. Petitioners Through : Mr. Sikander Khan, Adv. Versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. Respondents Through : Mr. Saleem Ahmed, ASC with Ms. Charu Dalai, Adv. and 10/SI Arun Dagar, P.S. K.N. Katju Marg for respondent no. 1 Mr. Daviender Hora, Adv. for respondent no. 2 with respondent no. 2 in person. '7 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK