Madhu Panchal v. State

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

¶1In the instant petition the petitioner has sought to consider the order dated 07.09.2011 passed by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge and revise the said order by setting aside the conditions of depositing Rs.01 lakh by way of FDR in the name of Trial Court.

¶2On the last date of hearing, i.e., 14.11.2011, ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter has been amicably settled with the Crl Rev.P.476/2011

complainant.

¶3On the statement of the ld. Counsel for the petitioner, the IO was directed to ensure the presence of the complainant on the next date of hearing. The complainant, namely, Roop Singh is personally present in the Court today, who has been identified by SI Ashwini Nagar, PS Karawal Nagar.

¶4The complainant submits that he has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR and he does not want to pursue the case.

¶5The instant petition is a Criminal Revision. The same is filed against the order dated 07.09.2011 passed by the Court below to modify the same. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 07.09.2011 is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall be released on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶6Therefore, the applicant shall be released on furnishing his personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶7A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for compliance.

¶8The Crl.Rev.P. 476/2011 is allowed.

¶9Dasti.

SURESH KAIT, J NOVEMBER 22, 2011 RS

Crl Rev.P.476/2011 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV. P. No.476/2011 % Judgment delivered on: 22nd November, 2011 MADHU PANCHAL ..... Petitioner Through:Mr. B.B. Singh, Adv. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State with SI Ashwini Nagar, PS Karawal Nagar. 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?