- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 23 July 2008
- Bench
- Anil Kumar
- Case no.
- CRL.M.C. 2293/2008
Follow Delhi High CourtFollow Anil Kumar
Judgment
Crl.M.C.No.2293/2008
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
Crl.M.C.No.2293/2008
%
Date of decision : 23.07.2008
Rinku @ Sh. Jai Pal & Others
….… Petitioners
Through: Mr.B.S. Chauhan, Advocate.
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) & Another
......... Respondents Through : Mr.R.N. Vats, APP for the State along with SI Sudama Sharma, P.S. Rohini. Mr.Diwakar Sinha, Advocate for NDPL.
CORAM :- * HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
¶1Whether reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment?
¶2To be referred to the reporter or not?
¶3Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J. *
+ Crl.M.A. No.8537/2008 in Crl.M.C. No.2293/2008
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
The application is disposed of. Crl.M.C. No.2293/2008 & Crl.M.A. No.8536/2008
Issue notice. Mr.Vats accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr.Sinha accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2. Learned Crl.M.C.No.2293/2008
counsel for petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.2 state that the matter has been settled between the parties and pursuant to the settlement the amount due to respondent No.2 has been paid by petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel contends that since the matter has been settled, no useful purpose shall be served in continuing the proceedings pursuant to FIR NO.1100/2007 under Section 135/150 of the Electricity Act registered at Police Station Rohini.
It is also contended that continuing the proceeding shall be waste of public money and it shall be in the interest of justice if the said FIR is quashed against petitioners 1 to 3.
Considering the facts and totality of circumstances, since the matter has been settled between the respondent No.2 and petitioner Nos.1 to 3, no useful purpose shall be served in continuing the FIR NO.1100/2007 under Section 135/150 of the Electricity Act registered at Police Station Rohini. It is also in the interest of justice to quash the said FIR. Therefore, the FIR and all proceeding emanating therefrom against the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are quashed against petitioner Nos.1 to
3.
With these directions, the petition and the pending application are disposed of. Dasti.
July 23, 2008
ANIL KUMAR, J. 'Dev'
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.