Fahad Ullah & Anr vs.state & Ors

Fahad Ullah & Anr vs State & Ors

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Oct 05, 2018

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1218492

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1218492
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Oct 05, 2018
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Fahad Ullah & Anr

Respondent

State & Ors

Excerpt

.....page 1 of 2 between the parties. it was agreed that a total amount of rs. 1,74,000/- would be paid by the petitioners on 08.05.2018. said amount has been paid and a no dues certificate dated 09.05.2018 has been issued.3. mr. pradeep baisoya, authorised representative of the respondent no.2 is present in court in person. he submits that the respondent no.2 has settled the disputes with the petitioners and has received the entire settlement amount of the theft bill. he has instructions to state that the respondent no.2 has no objection to the quashing of the subject fir and the consequent proceedings as the respondent no.2 has received the said settlement amount of rs. 1,74,000/-.4. in view of the fact that the parties have resolved their disputes and respondent no.2 does not wish to press its complaint, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. it would be expedient to quash the subject fir and the consequent proceedings emanating there from.5. in view of the above, the petition is allowed. fir no.996/2014 under section 379 of the ipc and section 135 of the indian electricity act, 2003, police station jamia nagar, new delhi and the consequent proceedings emanating there from are quashed. order dasti under the signatures of the court master.6. october05 2018 ‘prem’ crl.m.c. 3312/2018 sanjeev sachdeva, j page 2 of 2

Full Judgment

$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + CRL.M.C. 3312/2018 Judgment delivered on:

05. 10.2018 FAHAD ULLAH & ANR STATE & ORS versus ........ Petitioner

s ........ RESPONDENTS

Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner

For the Respondent : : Mr. Shahbaz Ahmed, Advocate For petitioner nos. 1 and 2 along with petitioner nos.1 & 2 in person. Mr. Jauhar Ali, Advocate for... Petitioner

no.3. Ms. Neelam Sharma, APP for State Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Standing Counsel for BSES/RPL with Mr. Amav Vidyarthi, Advocate for R-2 with R-2, present in person. Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, Assistant Manager, (Legal)/BSES/RPL. CORAM:-

"HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT0510.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner

s seek quashing of FIR No.996/2014 under Section 379 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Police Station Jamia Nagar, New Delhi, based on a settlement.

2. Subject FIR was registered for theft of electricity consequent to a raid that had taken place in the premises of the petitioners where direct theft was found. A direct theft assessment bill of Rs.2,32,291/- was raised. Thereafter petitioners approached the Permanent Lok Adalat and the matter was settled CRL.M.C. 3312/2018 Page 1 of 2 between the parties. It was agreed that a total amount of Rs. 1,74,000/- would be paid by the petitioners on 08.05.2018. Said amount has been paid and a No Dues Certificate dated 09.05.2018 has been issued.

3. Mr. Pradeep Baisoya, authorised representative of the respondent No.2 is present in Court in person. He submits that the respondent No.2 has settled the disputes with the petitioners and has received the entire settlement amount of the theft bill. He has instructions to state that the respondent No.2 has no objection to the quashing of the subject FIR and the consequent proceedings as the respondent No.2 has received the said settlement amount of Rs. 1,74,000/-.

4. In view of the fact that the parties have resolved their disputes and respondent No.2 does not wish to press its complaint, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. It would be expedient to quash the subject FIR and the consequent proceedings emanating there from.

5. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. FIR No.996/2014 under Section 379 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Police Station Jamia Nagar, New Delhi and the consequent proceedings emanating there from are quashed. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

6. OCTOBER05 2018 ‘prem’ CRL.M.C. 3312/2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J Page 2 of 2

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2018 Same Parties Fahad Ullah & Anr vs State & Ors Same Subject Land Acquisition