Ramesh Kumar v. State & Anr

ORDER

24.11.2011 This is a petition for quashing of FIR No. 46/2011 under Section 420/120-B/506/34 IPC registered at P.S. Vivek Vihar, New Delhi on the complaint of Respondent No.2 Smt. Madhu Puri. Briefly, the allegations as set out in the FIR are that the Respondent No.2. Madhu Puri alleged that the accused Vishal Ohri and Sushi I Kumar induced her to purchase flat which was being constructed at B-29, Jhilmil Colony, Delhi under a collaboration agreement dated 10th October, 2008. She gave a total consideration of Rs. 32.5 lacs to Smt. Kulwant Rani i.e. the Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. eEl ResPQndent NO'. 5, the mQther QfResPQndent NO'. 4 Sushi!. She entered intO' an Agreement to' Sell dated 29th December, 2008 with Vishal Ohri and paid him earnest mQney QfRs.2.5.lacs. The cQmplainant subsequently received a nQtice frQm a CQurt regarding suit fQr PQssessiQn and permanent injunctiQn filed by Ramesh Kumar whO' claimed to' be the owner Qf the said prQperty. During investigatiQn, it was fQund that Vishal Ohri had entered intO' an Agreement to' Sell in favQur Qf the CQmplainant and alsO' with Ramesh Kumar i.e. the PetitiQner. During the pendency Qf the investigatiQn, the matter has been settled. The CQmplainant Smt. Madhu Puri has handed Qver the peaceful PQssessiQn Qf the flat to' the Petitioner Ramesh and in turn she has received her cQnsideratiQn back. ResPQndent NO'. 2 whO' is present in CQUrt and is identified by her cQunsel states that she dQes nQt want to' pursue the abQvementiQned FIR against the PetitiQner and ResPQndent NO'. 2 & 5 i.e. Sushil Kumar and Smt. Kulwant Rani whO' are alsO' identified by their CQunsei. In view Qf the fact that the parties have amicably resQlved their differences Qf their Qwn free will, vQlitiQn and withQut any cQerciQn and nO' useful purpQse will be served in cQntinuance Qf the prQceedings, rather the same WQuid create further acrimQny between them, it WQuid be in the interest Qf justice to' quash the abQvementiQned FIR and the prQceedings pursuant thereto. There is no legal impediment in quashing the FIR in question. Consequently, FIR No. 46/2011 under Section 420/120-B/506/34 IPC registered at P.S. Vivek Vihar, New Delhi is quashed qua the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 and the proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed. Parties have signed this order sheet in acknowledgment of their statements made before this Court. The petition is disposed of. Order dasti. MUKTA GUPTA,J

* + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 2237/2011 RAMESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Himal Akhtar, Advocate with petitioner in person. Versus STATE & ANR ..... Respondent CORAM: Through Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for the State with SI Hajinder. Ms. Preeti Gupta, Advocate for the Complainant with complaint in person Mr. Lalit Mathur, Adv. for R- 4 &5 with R-4 & 5 in person. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA