Rajpal Singh Anand & Anr v. State & Ors

ORDER t7.tt.20ll cRL. M.A. 17993/2011 Vide the instant application, the applicant has sought correction of an inadvertent mistake in order dated 14.10.2011. wherein. it is recorded as under in para 07 of the order:- "'l Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that vide settlement dated 12.10.2011 the matter has been resolved between the parties. As per the sefflement, the petitioners have to pay a sum of Rs.4,47,75,0001-to respondent o \ No. 2 and the petitioners shall not claim any consideration for the land at Daboda (Gurgaon) and Mangar (Faridabad) purchased by late Shri Dildar Singh in the name of respondent No. 2." Learned counsel for applicant states that amongst the grounds of compromise, detailed in settlement deed, it has been stated as under:- "That the party of the first part( i.e. respondent No. 2) states that she has no concern wh;ltsoever of any nature or claim against the parfy of the second part or in the affairs of the company and its Directors. That the parlry of the first part holds in her name land in Daboda (Gurgaon) vide sale deed dated

12.12.2005 and land in Mangar (Faridabad) vide sale deed dated 30.12.2005 which were registered in her name and the payments were made by Spring Water Properties Pl4. Ltd. The party of the second part has shovin them as its own purchase in their books of accounts. Now as the first party has agreed to withdraw all cases against the party of the second part and its Directors the paffy of the first part has agreed to settle the claim against company without any interest or extra charge. In view of the above the party of the second part will not claim any I\ consideration for the land at Daboda (Gurgaon) and Mangar (Garidabad) purchased by the party of the first part in her name i.e. Smt. Shankuntla Anand". Keeping the contents of the application into view, para07 of the order dated 14.10.2011 be read as under:- "7 The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that vide settlement dated 12.10.2011 the matter has been resolved between the parties. As per the settlement, the petitioners have to pay a sum of Rs.4,47,75,000/- to respondent No. 2 and the petitioners shall not claim any consideration of the land at the Daboda (Gurgaon) and Mangar (Faridabad) purchased by Late Sh. Dildar Singh in the name of respondent No. 2" I further made it clear that words " Purchased by Late Sh Dildar Singh in the name of respondent No.2" is deleted and substituted by words "registered in the name of respondent No.2 (Smt. Shakuntala Anand) payments for which was made by Spring Water Properties Private Limited. \ No fuither order is required. Accordingly the application is disposed of. SURESH KAIT,J NOVEMBER l7,2oll j

f tt rN THE HrcH couRT oF DELH. AT NEW + CRL.M.C.No.34L7|2OLL % ludqment delivered on:l{th October 20:77 RAJPAL SINGH ANAND & ANR Through l Mr.Abhishek VCTSUS DELHI ,.\. F Mr.Arjun Rai,'Advs. ..... Petitioners Bhandari with STATE & ORS ..... Respondent Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP foi' State with Inspector Manish Joshi, police station EOW in person. Mr.Kedar Nath Tripathi & Mr. H, P. Sahu, Advs for R-2 with respondent in person. CORAM: : -. HON'B[g Un. JUSTICE SURESH KAET 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers I may be allowed to see the judghlent? l\4 2. To be referred tb geporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported N o in the Digest? SUREEH rcalr, J. (orat1 lssue notice. Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learned App on behalf of for State/ respondent No.1 anci N4r.Kedar Nailr Tripathi, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No.2 acceLrts nctice. t. , '*: 1. z. crl. M, c. ii c, 3 47 7 /2 0 1 7 Page I of6 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. 3. Respondent No.3 being a performa respondent, no notice requires. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No.23412009 dated 13.11.2009 case under Section 4201406146811208 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered nt at police station Economic Offence Wing, Crime Branch, t Delhi against the petitioners on the complaint of one Sh.Dildar Singh, who is no more in this world and passed away on 10.09.2010. 5. Respondent No.2 Smt.Shakuntala Anand is wife of deceased conrplainant, who has come forward to get the present FIR quashed after settlement, She has been duly identified by her counsel. In addition, investigating officer lnspector Manish joshi, EOW also.identified her. I 6. Mr.Harry Singh, son of respondent No.2 who is settleC in Germany is also present witir his mother and both of them stated that they have no objection, if the present FIR is quashed as per the settlement ai'rivecl at between the pafties. Even 'no objection certificate' which is at page No.45 of the paper book, Annexui'e 'D' collectively has been !r_ Crl. M. C. II o. 3 4, 7 7 / 2 0 7 1 . Page 2 oi6 I issued by Ms.Cindy Singh, daughter of respondent No.2, as she is also settled abroad'. 7 . Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that vide settlement dated 12.10.2011 the matter has been resolved betuleen the partres. As per the settlement, the petitioners lrave to pay a sum of <4,47,75,000i- to responclent No.2 and the petitioners shall not claim any consideration for the land at Daboda (Gurgaon) and Mangar (Faridabad) purchased by late Shri Dildar Singh in the name of respondent No.2. 8. The saici amount af 74,4.7,75,0001- has been handed over to respondent t!o.2 today in the Court vide cheque beai'ing No.366021 dated 14.1-O.2OI7 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Nicholson Road, N4ot'i Gate, Delhi in favour of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has accepted the same without any protest subject to realisation of the said cheque. 9. . Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that complaint against tlre respondent No.2 has ali'eady been with.drawn by the petitioners. , . ..{ I Crl.M.C.No.3477/2017 \ 10. Respondent No.2 is present in the Court with her counsel, stated that she is no more interested to pursue the case, therefore, she has no objection, if the present case FIR is quashed. .11. .Ms.Rajdipa Behura, learnecl APP for State submits that : the investigation is at the crucial stage and.during process, ;' precious time of the Court has also been consumed. Keeping the financial position into view, costs may be imposed upon the petitions, if the Court is irrclined to quash the present FlR. L2. Ld ccunsel for the petitioners on instruttions subinits that both tlre petitioners are willing to donate T5.00 lacs each in favour of School and Hcme for Mentally Retarded Children, Avantika, Sector- 1, Rohini, Delhi. 13. Accordingly, I direct the petitiorrs that the total amount of {10.00 lacs