Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Rosy George and Others Vs. State and Another

Rosy George and Others vs State and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Apr 09, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/948501

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CRL. M.C. 1159 of 2012
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rosy George and Others

Respondent

State and Another

Excerpt

suresh kait, j (oral) 1 notice issued. 2 ld. app accepts notice on behalf of state. 3 mr. sandeep kamar, ld. adv. accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. 2. 4 with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the instant petition is taken up for final disposal. 5 vide the instant petition, the petitioners have sought to quash fir no.204/2008, registered for the offences punishable under sections 420/468/471 indian penal code, 1860 at p.s. daryaganj, delhi. 6 further submits that vide mou dated 03.12.2011, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. therefore, respondent no.2/ complainant is no more interested to pursue the case further. 7 respondent no. 2 is personally present in the court today with his counsel, mr. sandeep kumar, advocate, who duly identifies him. 8 ld. counsel for respondent no. 2 upon instructions submits that the matter has been settled and the respondent no. 2 does not want to pursue the matter and has no objection if the fir is quashed. 9 ld. app for state submits that though the fir in the matter was registered on 30.07.2008, however, the investigations in the matter are still pending and therefore, charge-sheet yet to be filed in the trial court. 10 ld. app for state has fairly conceded that the fir pertains to section 420 of indian penal code, 1860, but the same is not made out in the instant case, therefore, in the interest of justice, the petition may be allowed. 11 keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and statement of respondent no. 2 and in the interest of justice, i quash fir no. 204/2008 registered at p.s. darya ganj, new delhi. 12 no order as to costs. 13 the petition is allowed on above terms. 14 dasti.

Full Judgment

SURESH KAIT, J

(Oral)

1 Notice issued.

2 Ld. APP accepts notice on behalf of State.

3 Mr. Sandeep Kamar, ld. Adv. accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.

4 With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the instant petition is taken up for final disposal.

5 Vide the instant petition, the petitioners have sought to quash FIR No.204/2008, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420/468/471 Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P.S. Daryaganj, Delhi.

6 Further submits that vide MOU dated 03.12.2011, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. Therefore, respondent No.2/ complainant is no more interested to pursue the case further.

7 Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the court today with his counsel, Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate, who duly identifies him.

8 Ld. counsel for respondent No. 2 upon instructions submits that the matter has been settled and the respondent No. 2 does not want to pursue the matter and has no objection if the FIR is quashed.

9 Ld. APP for State submits that though the FIR in the matter was registered on 30.07.2008, however, the investigations in the matter are still pending and therefore, charge-sheet yet to be filed in the trial court.

10 Ld. APP for State has fairly conceded that the FIR pertains to Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, but the same is not made out in the instant case, therefore, in the interest of justice, the petition may be allowed.

11 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and statement of respondent No. 2 and in the interest of justice, I quash FIR No. 204/2008 registered at P.S. Darya Ganj, New Delhi.

12 No order as to costs.

13 The petition is allowed on above terms.

14 Dasti.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial