Delhi High Court - Orders
Ashok Kumar Rathi & Anr vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 10 March, 2023
Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 77/2023 & CRL.M.A. 267/2023
ASHOK KUMAR RATHI & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Vikas Sharma,
Advocate and Mr. Surya Singh,
Advocate.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for the
State with Inspector Ravinder, Sector-
11/EOW.
Mr. Sharique Hussain, Advocate with
Mr. Rajneesh Sharma, AR of
respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
ORDER
% 10.03.2023 By way of the present petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the petitioners seek quashing of case FIR No. 116/2012 dated 31.08.2012 registered under sections 406/420/467/468/471/477-A/120-B/4-9 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 ('IPC') at P.S.: EOW.
2. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the entire amount due under the Domestic Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 77/2023 Page 1 of 3 By:NEERAJ Signing Date:15.03.2023 12:49:56 Sales Bill Factoring Facility sanctioned to the petitioner by respondent No.2 stands paid.
3. A No-Dues Certificate dated 05.01.2023 has been issued by respondent No.2 confirming payment in terms of the OTS dated 27.04.2018.
4. Mr. Sharique Hussain, learned counsel is present on behalf of respondent No.2 and confirms the above position
5. Mr. Tarang Srivastava, learned APP for the State submits that though status report has been filed, the same is not on record. A copy has been handed-up. Let the same be placed on record.
6. Relying upon the status report, Mr. Srivastava submits, that no charge was framed under sections 468/471 IPC and leaves it to the court to pass appropriate orders in the matter.
7. Considering that respondent No.2 has issued to the petitioners a No-
Dues Certificate as aforesaid, thereby closing the facility under a onetime settlement scheme, evidently the disputes between the contesting parties stand resolved amicably.
8. In the circumstances, in line with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2012) 10 SCC 303 as also in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2014) 6 SCC 466, this court sees no reason why the subject FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom should not be quashed. This court is of the view that in light of the settlement between the contesting parties, continuing with the subject FIR and all subsequent proceedings would be an exercise in futility and would not be conducive to peace and harmony between the parties.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 77/2023 Page 2 of 3 By:NEERAJ Signing Date:15.03.2023 12:49:569. Accordingly, FIR No.116/2012 dated 31.08.2012 registered at P.S.:
EOW is quashed. All proceedings arising therefrom also stand closed.
10. Petition stands disposed-of.
11. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J MARCH 10, 2023/ak Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 77/2023 Page 3 of 3 By:NEERAJ Signing Date:15.03.2023 12:49:56