25. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 189/2011 AMIT LUTHRA & ANR Petitioners Through: Mr. Ayub Khan, Advocate with petitioners in person. versus STATE & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for the State. Mr. Gagan Chhabra and Mr. Naveen Gaur, Advocates with respondent No.2 in person. Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate for R3/ICICI Bank CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI ORDER 0/c 11.03.2011 1 The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter a/ia for quashing of FIR No.742/2003 lodged by respondent No.2/complainant against the petitioners under Sections 420/468/471/419/464/34 IPC, registered with Police Station: Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, and all the proceedings arising therefrom. CRL.M.C. 189/2011 Page No.1 of 4 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA 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. Signature Not Verified 2. On the last date of hearing, i.e., on 24.01.2011, it was directed that in view of the nature of the complaint and the allegations levelled in the complaint by respondent No.2/complainant that the petitioners had misrepresented themselves as representing the ICICI Bank and sought to demand certain amounts from respondent No.2/complainant as Collection Agents representing the said bank, ICICI Bank, Credit Card Division was directed to be impleaded as a co- respondent. 3. Amended memo of parties has been filed. ICICI Bank is duly represented through counsel. It is stated by the counsel for respondent No.3/ICICI Bank that the Bank had never engaged the petitioners as Collection Agents and his clients are unaware of any such transaction between petitioners No.1 & 2 and respondent No.2/complainant. Counsel for respondent No.2/complainant, however, states that respondent No.2/complainant has arrived at a settlement with the petitioners of his own free will and volition and without any undue influence or coercion from any quarter and now he has no objection to the FIR being quashed. 4. Learned APP for the State submits that after the investigation was carried out in respect of the complaint made by - -4 CRL.M.C. 189/2011 Page No.2 of 4 respondent No.2/complainant, charge-sheet has been filed and the matter is at the stage of prosecution evidence. However, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, he has no objection to the prayer made in the present petition being allowed. He, however, submits that in view of the fact that it was on account of the actions of the petitioners that the legal machinery was put into motion, which resulted in an incurring of unnecessary expenditure and wastage of time, it is a fit case, where costs must be imposed on the petitioners. S. This Court has heard counsels for the parties. In view of the submission made by respondent No.2/complainant and in view of the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement of their own free will and volition and without any undue influence or coercion from any quarter, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding further with the aforesaid FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom. 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.742/2003 lodged by respondent No.2/complainant with Police Station: Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, and all proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to 4 the condition that the petitioners shall collectively pay costs of 10,000/-, out of which a sum of 5,000/- shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Advocates' Library Fund and the remaining sum of CRL.M.C. 189/2011 Page No.3 of 4 5,000/- shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. 7. The aforesaid costs shall be deposited by the petitioners within four weeks, while furnishing proof of payment to the learned APP for the State within the same period. 8. The petition is disposed of. File be consigned to the record room. HIMA KOHLI,J MARCH 11, 2011 rkb CRL.M.C. 189/2011 Page No.4 of 4