CRL.M.C./4241/2023 of SUPREME INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LTD. AND ORS. Vs STATE (NCT) OF DELHI AND ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ CRL.M.C. 4241/2023 SUPREME INFRASTRUCTURE SUPREME INFRASTRUCTURE

INDIA LTD. AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Aditya Sharma, Mr. Manoj Rajpoot, Mr. Dushyant Sharma, Mr. Eugene and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocates. Through: Mr. Aditya Sharma, Mr. Manoj Rajpoot, Mr. Dushyant Sharma, Mr. Eugene and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocates.

versus

STATE (NCT) OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Sanajeev Sabharwal, APP for State with SI Satvinder PS Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. State with SI Satvinder PS Chanakyapuri, New Delhi.

Mr. Sanyat Lodha and Ms. Sanjana Saddy, Advocates for respondent No.2. Saddy, Advocates for respondent No.2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRIO R R

07.03.2024

1. By way of present petition, the petitioners seek following reliefs:

“a) quash and set aside FIR bearing No. 55/2017 dated 30.05.2017 registered with Police Station Chankyapuri, New Delhi under Section 174-A IPC against the Petitioners and all criminal proceedings arising out ofthe said FIR; and/or

b)quash all criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 7414/2019 titled "State v. Vikram Sharma", arising out of impugned FIR No. 55/2017 registered with P.S. Chankyapuri, New Delhi under section 174-A and pending trial before the Court of Sh. Bhavya Karhail Ld. M.M.-02, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi…”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the present proceedings

are arising out of CC Nos.33493/2016 and 33494/2016 initiated under Sections 138 read with Section 142 NI Act. He states that vide order dated 17.02.2017, petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 have been declared proclaimed offenders. He states that in the proceedings pending before the learned MM, two addresses of the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 were available however, service was effected only at one of the addresses without there being any reason recorded as to why the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 were not attempted to be served at the second address. He further states that the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 could have been declared only as proclaimed persons and not as proclaimed offenders and in this regard has referred to the decision in Sanjay Bhandari

v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10203. He further states that during the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioners have reached settlement with the complainants in both the abovementioned criminal cases vide Memorandum of Full and Final Settlement dated 27.01.2023 and that the entire settlement amount has already been paid to the complainants.

3. He further submits that, the petitioners are further willing to bear the costs in terms of the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. reported as (2010) 5 SCC 663.

4. Mr. Sanyat Lodha, learned counsel appearing for the complainants/respondents confirms the factum of settlement. He further states that entire settlement amount having been received, the complainants/respondents are now left with no further grievance against the petitioners. He further submits that in terms of Clause 5 of the said settlement, the copy of the original agreement dated 02.01.2015 has also been handed over in the Court today.

5. Both the counsels state upon instructions that no further obligations remain to be fulfilled.

6. Considering the aforesaid, the order dated 17.02.2017 as well as the FIR bearing No. 55/2017 registered under Section 174A IPC at Police Station Chankyapuri, New Delhi and all proceedings emanating thereof as well as Criminal Cases bearing Nos.33493/2016 and 33494/2016 "State v. Vikram Sharma", are hereby quashed

7. Since the offence is compoundable, the petitioners are acquitted of the offence, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5 lacs to be deposited by the petitioners with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority within period of four weeks from today. The amount so deposited shall be utilized by the Delhi State Legal Services Authority for providing counselling/psychological support to POCSO victims requiring such assistance.

8. Proof evidencing receipt of deposit shall be filed with the I.O. as well as in Court.

9. copy of this order be communicated to the Member Secretary, Delhi State Legal Services Authority for intimation.

10. With the above directions, the petition is disposed of in above terms.. 11. In case proof of cost is not filed within four weeks, the matter be placed before the Court. 11. In case proof of cost is not filed within four weeks, the matter be placed before the Court.

MARCH 7, 2024/rd

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J