Sukhvindra Singh Rathore and anr. Vs State and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
writ petition came to be numbered by transfer of o.a.no.7295 of 1999 on the file of the tamil nadu administrative tribunal praying to call for the connected records in the issuance of impugned orders in proceedings r.c.43397/93/q3 dated 11.06.1998 of the 2nd respondent and quash the same; consequently to direct the respondents to include his name in the ensuing panel for a.os (accounts officers) promote without further loss of time and thus render justice; without prejudice to his claim regarding seniority and attendant benefits and pass such other orders or other reliefs as may deem fit (in view of applicant's superannuation on 30.09.1999). 1. whether reporters of local papers may no be allowed to see the judgment?2. to be referred to the reporter or not? no3. whether the judgment should be no reported in the digest?order,1. the present petition is filed by the petitioners under section 482 of the cr.pc seeking quashing of fir no.326/2008 lodged by the respondent no.2/company against the petitioners under sections 406/420/467/468/471/120b ipc, registered with police station: darya ganj, distt. central delhi.2. in the complaint, the respondent no.2/complainant accused petitioner no.1 and his father, dr.himmat singh rathore of non-payment of dues payable by various parties for taking vehicles on hire-purchase the complainant, at the recommendation of the petitioner no.1 and his father. it is further alleged that the petitioners had projected themselves as financers to the hirers and received payments towards the hire installments in the name of the complainant/company for depositing the amounts in its account, which they failed to do. pursuant to lodging of the aforesaid fir, investigation was carried out by the police authorities and thereafter, the prosecution filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners before the metropolitan magistrate, tis hazari courts. in the said proceedings, the petitioner no.1 sought regular bail, which was granted in his favour. the petitioner no.2 was given anticipatory bail from the high court.3. now, the parties state that during the pendency of the aforesaid proceeding, they have settled their dispute amicably in terms of the mou dated 19.06.2009 (annexure-b). as per the settlement arrived at between the parties, the petitioners have agreed to pay a sum of rs.1 crore in installments to the respondent no.2/complainant, in return of which, the respondent no.2/complainant has agreed not to oppose the prayer made by the petitioners for quashing of the fir, subject matter of the present petition.4. counsels for the parties state that the entire sum of rs.1 crore has since been received by the respondent no.2/complainant from the petitioners. the petitioners are present in court. so is shri baljit singh kohli, the authorized representative of the respondent no.2/company, who hands over a copy of the resolution of the board of directors of the respondent no.2/company held on 01.10.2008 authorizing him to appear on behalf of the company, which is taken on the record. the parties appear to have arrived at the aforesaid settlement of their own free will and volition and without any undue coercion or influence from any quarter. learned app also states that she has no objection to the aforesaid settlement being accepted by the court and the prayer made in the petition being allowed, subject to the petitioners being burdened with costs.5. there appears no legal impediment in allowing the present petition. however, considering the fact that on account of the petitioners, the legal machinery of the state has been set into motion, which has resulted in incurring of unnecessary expenditure and wastage of time, while quashing fir no.326/2008 registered by the respondent no.2/company against the petitioners and allowing the present petition, it is directed that the petitioners shall pay costs of rs.20,000/-, out of which rs.10,000/- shall be deposited with the delhi high court lawyers' welfare fund and the remaining amount of rs.10,000/- shall be deposited with the delhi police welfare fund. needful shall be done within two weeks. copy of proof of deposit of the aforesaid costs shall be furnished to the learned app for the state within two weeks.6. the petition is disposed of. file be consigned to the record room.

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,

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.PC seeking quashing of FIR No.326/2008 lodged by the respondent No.2/company against the petitioners under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/120B IPC, registered with Police Station: Darya Ganj, Distt. Central Delhi.

2. In the complaint, the respondent No.2/complainant accused petitioner No.1 and his father, Dr.Himmat Singh Rathore of non-payment of dues payable by various parties for taking vehicles on hire-purchase the complainant, at the recommendation of the petitioner No.1 and his father. It is further alleged that the petitioners had projected themselves as financers to the hirers and received payments towards the hire installments in the name of the complainant/company for depositing the amounts in its account, which they failed to do. Pursuant to lodging of the aforesaid FIR, investigation was carried out by the police authorities and thereafter, the prosecution filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts. In the said proceedings, the petitioner No.1 sought regular bail, which was granted in his favour. The petitioner No.2 was given anticipatory bail from the High Court.

3. Now, the parties state that during the pendency of the aforesaid proceeding, they have settled their dispute amicably in terms of the MOU dated 19.06.2009 (Annexure-B). As per the settlement arrived at between the parties, the petitioners have agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1 crore in installments to the respondent No.2/complainant, in return of which, the respondent No.2/complainant has agreed not to oppose the prayer made by the petitioners for quashing of the FIR, subject matter of the present petition.

4. Counsels for the parties state that the entire sum of Rs.1 crore has since been received by the respondent No.2/complainant from the petitioners. The petitioners are present in Court. So is Shri Baljit Singh Kohli, the authorized representative of the respondent No.2/company, who hands over a copy of the resolution of the Board of Directors of the respondent No.2/company held on 01.10.2008 authorizing him to appear on behalf of the company, which is taken on the record. The parties appear to have arrived at the aforesaid settlement of their own free will and volition and without any undue coercion or influence from any quarter. Learned APP also states that she has no objection to the aforesaid settlement being accepted by the Court and the prayer made in the petition being allowed, subject to the petitioners being burdened with costs.

5. There appears no legal impediment in allowing the present petition. However, considering the fact that on account of the petitioners, the legal machinery of the State has been set into motion, which has resulted in incurring of unnecessary expenditure and wastage of time, while quashing FIR No.326/2008 registered by the respondent No.2/company against the petitioners and allowing the present petition, it is directed that the petitioners shall pay costs of Rs.20,000/-, out of which Rs.10,000/- shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Lawyers' Welfare Fund and the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund. Needful shall be done within two weeks. Copy of proof of deposit of the aforesaid costs shall be furnished to the learned APP for the State within two weeks.

6. The petition is disposed of. File be consigned to the record room.