9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1936X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioners, namely Vijay Kumar Gupta, Raj Kumar Sharma and Vinod Chaudhary only to the extent of their role in commission of the alleged offence. Petition allowed. - Hon'ble Mr. Justice I.S.Mehta And I.S.Mehta, J For the Appellant : Through: Mr.R.P.Luthra, Adv. with Mr.Sourabh Luthra, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr.G.M.Farooqui, APP for State Mr.Sanjeev Sagar, Adv. with Mr.Simran Vod, Adv. for R-2. ORDER I.S. MEHTA (JUDGE) 1. The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is preferred by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.107/2003, under Sections 406/420/468/471 IPC, registered at Police Station-Parliament Street, Delhi and all the proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. The brief facts stated are that 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled to make the payments. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 filed a complaint case under Section 190 and 200 Cr.P.C against the 54 persons including the present petitioners accompanied with application under Section 153 (3) Cr.P.C and the concerned learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed the SHO/IO of Police Station- Parliament Street to register an FIR against the 54 persons including the petitioners. Hence, the present FIR has been registered. 3. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the default was committed due to unavoidable circumstances and there was no intention on the part of the petitioners to commit any wrong. Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that when the petitioners could not fulfil the terms of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de in the petition and have no objection if the present FIR is quashed and the petition is allowed. 5. Counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the petitioners herein have made payment of full and final settlement amount to the respondent No.2. He has further submitted that the FIR was registered against the petitioners and other accused for non payment of loan amount. He has further submitted that since the petitioners have made payment to the respondent No.2 as per NOC and receipts issued by the respondent No.2, he has no objection if the present FIR is quashed. 6. The Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], has observed as under:- 61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
