Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 696 (DEL)

Sanjeev Bhatia v. State (Govt. Of Nct, Delhi)

2012-02-22

SURESH KAIT

body2012
JUDGMENT : SURESH KAIT, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 23.02.2011, the matter between the parties got compromised and the total payment was made to the son of the complainant/respondent being the attorney. 2. In the instant petition, notice was issued vide order dated 27.07.2011. Thereafter process to serve the notice has been filed by the petitioner to serve respondent No.2, however, both the times, service report were awaited. 3. I note that vide order dated 25.02.2011, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dwarka, New Delhi has recorded that Sh. J.P. Gupta son of the complainant received the settlement amount of Rs. 1 lac on behalf of his father complainant as full and final settlement. The letter of authority has also been filed on record. Statement of the son of complainant was recorded as under: “I have received a sum of Rs. 1 lac from Smt. Harmohinder Bhatia, mother of the accused Sanjeev Bhatia towards full and final settlement in the present case vide FIR No. 26./2011, PS Naraina.” 4. Inspector DIU/SW Ishwar Singh has filed the report dated 31.1.2012 in this Court and has submitted that respondent No.2 has been informed regarding the date and direction issued by this Court. The report is taken on record. 5. Learned APP has submitted that if this Court is inclined to quash the FIR, then heavy cost be imposed upon the petitioner. I find force in the submission of the learned APP but keeping in view the financial position of the petitioner, I refrain myself from imposing costs. 6. I note, on the said report, the signature of respondent No.2, complainant, has been taken. While signing, it is written that his wife is on bed. 7. May be due to this reason mentioned in report, neither the complainant nor his attorney has come to the Court. The other reason may be as he has already received the total amount. 8. Since the matter has been compromised, the statements of the son and attorney of the complainant has been recorded by the trial court which has a binding effect, in the circumstances, FIR No. 26/2011 dated 18.02.2011 under Sec. 420/120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860, PS Naraina, is hereby quashed. 9. Accordingly, CRL.M.C. 2357/2011 is allowed.