Anil Jain v. State & Anr

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral) CRL.M.C. 2439/2011

¶1Learned counsel for the petitioner states that FIR No.429/1999 dated 10.6.1999 under Section 39 and 44 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910, read with Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at Police Station Badli against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent No.2. Crl CRL.M.C. No.2439/2011

¶2Further submits, the entire dues have been paid to respondent No.2 and thereafter the matter has been compromised between the parties. The respondent No.2 has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

¶3Mr. Vikram Nandrajog, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has verified from his client that the total payment has been received. He has no objection if the present FIR is quashed since his client has resolved all the disputes for the said FIR.

¶4Keeping the statement of counsel for the respondent No.2 in view, the Criminal M.C. No.2439/2011 is allowed. The FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. CRL.M.A. 8815/2011

¶1The stay application is infructuous.

¶2Dasti.

SURESH KAIT, J November 2, 2011 S.pal

Crl CRL.M.C. No.2439/2011 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. No.2439/2011 % Judgment delivered on: 2nd November, 2011 ANIL JAIN ..... Petitioner Through : Mr.Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Adv. Versus STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Vikram Nandrajog, Adv. for R-2/NDPL Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP S.I. Alok Bajpai, PS SP Badli. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?