W.P.(CRL)/1650/2011 of BALDEV SINGH THAKUR & ORS. Vs STATE & ORS.

Court: Delhi High Court
Decision date: 2012-08-09
Bench: A K PATHAK

Parties

VIKASH AGGARWAL (PETITIONER)
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS (RESPONDENT)

Cites (2)

WRIT PETITION 732 of 2016 (2025)
BAIL APPLN./442/2017 of MAHENDER SINGH Vs STATE (2017)

Full text

solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus

Show all Body

$-A47 & 48

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

w.P.(cRL) 16r9t20rr

VIKASH AGGARWAL ..... PetitionerThrough: Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey,Adv.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... RespondentsThrough:

w.P.(cRL) r6s0t20rr

BALDEV SINGH THAKUR & ORS.

& ORS. ORS. .... PetitionersThrough: Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey,Adv.

versus

STATE & ORS.

..... RespondentsThrough: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, ASCwith Mr. Nikhil Menon andMs. Swati Goswami, Adv.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

ORDER

09.08.20t2

Present FIR has been registered on the complaint of therespondent No. 2. It is alleged in the FIR that Smt. Usha Thakur hadtaken personal loan of t 10 lacs from Mr. Pritam Singh, brother ofcomplainant/respondent No. 2. But she did not repay the same.Consequently, civil suit bearing No. CS(OS) 604/2009 was filed inthe court of Additional District Judge, Rohini for recovery of

Signature Not Verified

T18,11,000/-. In the said suit fabricated [receipt, ][puqportedly signed]by the respondent No. 2 and [witnessed ][by ][Vikas ][Aggarwal ][and]Mahinder Singh was [produced ]to show [that ][the ][loan ][stood ][repaid.]During the pendency of the suit, the [petitioner ][and ][the ][respondent]No. 2 have settled their disputes [and ][thereof ][sum ][of T 8 ][lacs ][has]been paid to the complainant. In [view ][of ][the ][settlement, ][the ][said ][suit]has already been dismissed as withdrawn [on 24.09.20II.]

Respondent No. 2, who is [present ]in [court ][arid has ][been]identified by his counsel as also by [the ][Investigating ][Officer, ][submits]that he has no objection in case the FIR in [question is ][quashed.]

In view of the settlement arrived at between [the ][parties, ][no]fruitful purpose would be served in keeping [the criminal ][litigation]pending. Accordingly, in the interest of Justice, [FIR ][No.78l20LI]under Sections 42014681471134IPC [registered at P.S. Paschim ][Vihar]and the consequent proceedings [emanating ][therefrom ][are quashed.]

Both the petitions are disposed of in [the above terms.]

Dasti.

T&^_^=A.K. PATHATi J.

AUGUST 09,2012