Rakesh Kumar and ors. Vs State and anr.

Rakesh Kumar and ors. vs State and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 16, 2010

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/904979

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/904979
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Ms. Hima kohli, J.
Decided On: Jul 16, 2010
Case Number: WP(Crl.) No. 480/2010 & Crl.MA 3710/2010
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

After the judgment of the trial Court, the lower appellate Court and the High Court, the parties have exchanged correspondence and apparently conflicting communications have been issued by the functionaries of the Government and the appellant. However, it is not necessary to consider additional pleadings and documen...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code Of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) - Sections 482 ; Indian Penai Code - Sections 408, 420, 468, 471, 34 IPC

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rakesh Kumar and ors.

Advocate Mr. Anil Goel, Adv.

Respondent

State and anr.

Advocate Mr. Vikas Pahwa, ; Mr.Piyush Singh ; Inspector Ramphal Singh, ; Mr.Ratnakar Mattiyar, Advs.

Legal References

Acts: Code Of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) - Sections 482 ; Indian Penai Code - Sections 408, 420, 468, 471, 34 IPC

Excerpt

after the judgment of the trial court, the lower appellate court and the high court, the parties have exchanged correspondence and apparently conflicting communications have been issued by the functionaries of the government and the appellant. however, it is not necessary to consider additional pleadings and documents because we are convicted that the high court committed an error by not entertaining the application filed by the appellant under order 41 rule 27 cpc for producing additional evidence to show that the possession of the major portion of the land covered by the scheme was taken after paying compensation to the land owners and the scheme has been implemented.[para 12] 13. we are also of the view that the courts below have gravely erred in holding that ex.d1 dated 29.4.1983 is a notification issued under section 50(4) and the final scheme was not published as per the requirement of section 50(7). a perusal of ex.d1, copy of which has been placed on the record of this appeal as annexure-p2 shows that this is the notification by which the final scheme was published in madhya pradesh gazette dated 29.4.1983. reference to section 50(4) has been made in this notification to signify that the scheme was approved by the appellant. all the courts have misinterpreted this notification as a notification issued under section 50(4). that apart, a conjoint reading of the notifications - annexures-p6 dated 4.7.1980, p7 dated 19.6.1981 and p2 dated 29.4.1983 makes it clear that the scheme was finalized after complying with the mandate of various sub- sections of section 50 of the act.[para 13].....of the meeting of the board of directors of the respondent no.2, held on 13.3.2009 is handed over, and is taken on record. the said resolution authorizes mr. ganesh to appear on behalf of the respondent no.2.4. the petitioners are present in the court. mr.abhay ganesh, duly authorized representative of the respondent no.2 is also present in the court. they confirm that the aforesaid compromise has been arrived at between the parties of their own free will and volition and without any undue influence or coercion from any quarters. learned app for the state states that he does not seriously oppose the prayer made in the present application being allowed. there appears no legal impediment in accepting the compromise arrived at between the parties. the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions thereof. fir no. 12/2007 and all the proceedings arising therefrom, stand quashed. however, in view of the fact that the state machinery has been set into motion at the instance of the parties, the parties are directed to pay some costs, as a deterrent to any such future litigation. the parties shall therefore deposit costs of rs.5,000/- each with the juvenile justice board, within one week.5. the petition is disposed of, along with the pending application. file be consigned to the record room.

Full Judgment

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest?

ORDER. (Oral)

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.12/2007 under Sections 408/420/468/471/34 IPC registered with PS Kingsway Camp, Model Town lodged by the respondent No.2/complainant, M/s Saya Automobile Limited.

2. It is the case of the respondent No.2/Company that the petitioners induced it to part with physical deliveries of new motor vehicles to the customers, without receipt of proper sale consideration, thus causing wrongful loss to the respondent No.2.

3. Counsels for the parties state that after the aforesaid FIR was lodged by the respondent No.2 against them, investigations are going on. However, in the meantime, the parties are stated to have arrived at an amicable settlement, as recorded in the Compromise Deed dated 15.9.2009. Though the original Compromise Deed is not placed on the record, counsels for the parties hand it over in the court. The same is taken on record. It is stated in the aforesaid Compromise Deed that all the disputes, differences, claims, demands and grievances between the parties stand fully settled and neither of the parties would make any claim against each other. The compromise also records that the respondent No.2 would render all co- operation for quashing of the FIR and any proceedings arising there from. Along with the Compromise Deed, a copy of the extract of the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors of the respondent No.2, held on 13.3.2009 is handed over, and is taken on record. The said resolution authorizes Mr. Ganesh to appear on behalf of the respondent No.2.

4. The petitioners are present in the court. Mr.Abhay Ganesh, duly authorized representative of the respondent No.2 is also present in the court. They confirm that the aforesaid compromise has been arrived at between the parties of their own free will and volition and without any undue influence or coercion from any quarters. Learned APP for the State states that he does not seriously oppose the prayer made in the present application being allowed. There appears no legal impediment in accepting the compromise arrived at between the parties. The parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions thereof. FIR No. 12/2007 and all the proceedings arising therefrom, stand quashed. However, in view of the fact that the State machinery has been set into motion at the instance of the parties, the parties are directed to pay some costs, as a deterrent to any such future litigation. The parties shall therefore deposit costs of Rs.5,000/- each with the Juvenile Justice Board, within one week.

5. The petition is disposed of, along with the pending application. File be consigned to the record room.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2010 Same Parties Rakesh Kumar and ors. vs State and anr. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Ms. Hima kohli, J. Acts & Sections Code Of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) - Sections 482 ; Indian Pen...

Criminal