Virender @ Munish v. State & Ors

ORDER %

05.10.2010 Respondent No. 2 is present in person. Let his statement be recorded on oath. I have heard the statement made by the respondent No. 2. I have also spoken to the petitioner,who is a studentand studyingfor gettinga degree/diplomain M.B.A. I have verifiedthe facts. The petitioner and the respondentNo. 2 are othei-wiseknownto eachotheras the respondent No. 2 has a shop in the localitywhere the petitioner is residing with his parents. They have resolved their differences and the respondent No. 2 does notwantto proceedfurtheragainstthepetitioner. In theFIR/charge sheet it is alleged that the respondent No. 2 was deprived of his mobile phone. The respondentNo. 2 has stated that the mobile phone has been returned to him. Keeping in view the nature of allegations and the fact that the parties have amicably resolved and sorted out their disputes and differences, the presentpetitionis allowedto the extentthat proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to FIR No. 437/2008. Police Station Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Mehrauliunder Section356/379/411/34IPC are herebyset aside/quashed. The complainant has been identified by the counsel for the petitioner. The petition 13 accordingly disposed of DASTI.

SANJIV KHANNA, J. OCTOBER 05, 2010 VKR

13. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2795/2010 VIRENDER @ MUNISH Petitioner ThroughMr. B.K. Singh, Advocate alongwith petitioner in person. versus STATE& OR.S. Respondents ThroughMr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, APP for the State. Respondent No. 2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA