Anil JaIn Vs. State and anr.

Anil Jain vs State and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Nov 02, 2011

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/922467

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/922467
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Suresh Kait, J.
Decided On: Nov 02, 2011
Case Number: CRL.M.C. No.2439 of 2011
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Electricity Act, 1910 - Sections 39, 44; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 (IPC) - Section 379

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anil Jain

Respondent

State and anr.

Advocate Mr. Vikram Nandrajog

Legal References

Acts: Indian Electricity Act, 1910 - Sections 39, 44; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 (IPC) - Section 379

Excerpt

1. learned counsel for the petitioner states that fir no.429/1999 dated 10.6.1999 under section 39 and 44 of indian electricity act, 1910, read with section 379 of indian penal code, 1860 was registered at police station badli against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent no.2. crl2. further submits, the entire dues have been paid to respondent no.2 and thereafter the matter has been compromised between the parties. the respondent no.2 has no objection if the present fir is quashed.3. mr. vikram nandrajog, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has verified from his client that the total payment has been received. he has no objection if the present fir is quashed since his client has resolved all the disputes for the said fir.4. keeping the statement of counsel for the respondent no.2 in view, the criminal m.c. no.2439/2011 is allowed. the fir and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. crl.m.a. 8815/20111. the stay application is infructuous.2. dasti.

Full Judgment

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that FIR No.429/1999 dated 10.6.1999 under Section 39 and 44 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910, read with Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at Police Station Badli against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent No.2. Crl

2. Further submits, the entire dues have been paid to respondent No.2 and thereafter the matter has been compromised between the parties. The respondent No.2 has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

3. Mr. Vikram Nandrajog, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has verified from his client that the total payment has been received. He has no objection if the present FIR is quashed since his client has resolved all the disputes for the said FIR.

4. Keeping the statement of counsel for the respondent No.2 in view, the Criminal M.C. No.2439/2011 is allowed. The FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. CRL.M.A. 8815/2011

1. The stay application is infructuous.

2. Dasti.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2011 Same Parties Anil Jain vs State and anr. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Suresh Kait, J. Acts & Sections Indian Electricity Act, 1910 - Sections 39, 44; Indian Penal ...