Shaukat Ullah Khan & Others v. State & Another

\ 39\ TI o/o L5.1 1.2010 Present: Mr. D. Hasija & Mr. S.N. Pandey, Advs. for the Petitioners. Mr. Arvind Gupta, APP for the State with Inspector Shiv Singh, EOW/IO. Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, Adv. for respondent No. 2 with respondent No. 2 in person. J Crl. M.A. No. 17346 '^O1O (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. Crl. M.C. No. 3549/2O10 On the complaint of respondent No. 2, FIR in question was registered against the petitioners. It was alleged that the petitioners had taken a sum of T2,50,000/-from respondent No. 2 in ord.er to arrange a Visa in her favour. Now, petitioners and respondent No. 2 have settled their disputes, inasmuch as petitioners have refunded the amount of T2,50,000l-to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2, wi:,o is present in the Court today, admits having entered into compromise with the petitioners. Respondent No. 2 states that she has no objection in case FIR in question is ( r a Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. , 1- \a . NOVEMBER 15, 2OLO rb quashed. Keeping in mind the above facts and in the larger interest, I quash the FIR No. 59 r /2oos under sections 406 /42o / so6 /34 rp} P.S. Malviya Nagar registered at police station Malviya Nagar and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom, subject to the condition that each of the petitioners shall deposit a cost of . T15,000/- each with the Advocates welfare Fund, Delhi High court. Receipt evidencing deposition of cost be filed in the Registry within ten days. Application is dismissed as infructuous. r