Dharam Singh v. The State & Anr

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

¶1Instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order 22.05.1999 whereby learned Trial Court has issued summons against the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 Indian Penal Code in the complaint case filed by respondent No.2.

¶2He further submits that petitioner and respondent No.2 are real brothers and now they have amicably settled all the issues qua the present complaint case and respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue his case any further.

¶3Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court and has been duly identified by his counsel Mr.S. K. Runga, learned Senior Advocate. On instructions, learned Senior Advocate submits that all the issues with respect to present complaint case has been settled with the petitioner and respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue his case no more and wishes to withdraw the same having been amicably settled.

¶4Mr.Navin Sharma, learned APP for State submits that being the complaint case, he has no objection if the instant petition is allowed.

¶5I note that vide the impugned order, learned Trial Court has issued the summons to petitioner in a criminal complaint case preferred by and respondent No.2. Pursuant to amicable settlement, respondent No.2 wishes to withdraw the same. There seems to be no legal embargo that the complaint case cannot be withdrawn by the complainant.

¶6Keeping the settlement between the petitioner and respondent No.2 into view, the criminal complaint case filed by respondent No.2 against petitioner stands withdrawn. Consequently, petitioner stands discharged therefrom.

¶7Accordingly, Criminal M.C.No.4551/2006 stands allowed and

disposed of.

¶8In view of above, order, Criminal M.A.7683/2006 becomes infructuous and accordingly, stands disposed of as such.

¶9No order as to costs.

¶10Dasti.

SURESH KAIT, J November 24, 2011 Mk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. No. 4551/2006 % Judgment delivered on: 24th November, 2011 DHARAM SINGH ..... Petitioner Through : Mr.R. K. Kashyap, Adv. versus STATE & ANR ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Navin Sharma, APP for State/R-1. Mr.S. K. Rungta, Senior Adv with Ms.Neha Tanwar and Mr.Prashant Singh, Advs for R-2 with respondent in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?