) 39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Ofo 1. CRL.M.C. 2287/2010 & Crl.M.A. No.12399/2010 TRIVENI INFRASTRUTURE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD & ORS ..... Petitioners Through : Mr. Sanjay S. Chabra and versus Mr. Alok K. Aggarwal, Advs. with petitioners No.2 & 3 in person. STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mrs. S. Kohli, APP for State. CORAM: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv. with Mr. respondent No.2 in person. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI ORDER 19.07.2010 The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for quashing of the FIR No.88/2010 lodged by the respondent No.2 against the petitioners under Sections 420/406/409 IPC with at PS Sarita Vihar, New Delhi. 2. Counsel for the petitioners states that the present petition has been filed in view of a settlement arrived at between the parties. It is stated that in the year 2006-07, the petitioner No.1 company invited applications for provisional registration of plots/flats in the real estate projects to be developed by petitioner No.1 company, situated CRL.M.C. 2287/2010 Page No.1 of 4 .J 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 at Faridabad. The respondent No.2 was one of the applicants in the V aforesaid projects and deposited a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards the advance registration of plot/flat. 3. Against his application, the respondent No.2 was offered provisional allotment of flat No.611, Tower 11, 5th Floor in the Group Housing Project, namely, Triveni Galaxy at Sector 78, Faridabad. On the acceptance of the allotment, respondent No.2 made payment of installments from time to time, totalling to a sum of Rs.8,47,107/-. However, he was dissatisfied with the pace of construction and defaulted in payment of further installments. In the meantime, the petitioner No.1 faced severe financial crunch, as a result of which, the respondent No.2 cancelled the booking made by him and agreed to take refund of the total amount paid to the petitioners, in 4 installments. It is stated that the petitioners issued post dated cheques totalling to a sum of Rs.8,47,000/-, but on presenting the said cheques for encashment, the same were returned unpaid to the respondent No. 2 by his bankers, with the remarks, " account blocked". J 4. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioners that the bank accounts of petitioner No.1 were blocked by the Economic Offences Wing on account of investigations being carried out in respect of the accounts of the petitioner No.1 company. Due to non-encashment of CRL.M.C. 2287/2010 Page No.2 of 4 the aforesaid cheques, the respondent No.2 lodged the aforesaid FIR 3 against the petitioners, which dispute has now been settled by the parties with the understanding that the petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.8,30,000/- to the respondent No.2 in full and final settlement of all the claims of the respondent No.2 against the petitioners. The aforesaid amount is handed over by the counsel for the petitioners to the respondent No.2, through counsel, by way of two Pay Orders, i.e., Pay Order No.095641 dated 2. 7 .2010 in the sum of Rs.30,000/- drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. and Pay Order No.000673 dated 8.6.2010 in the sum of Rs.8,00,000/- drawn on Induslnd Bank, Lajpat Nagar Branch, New Delhi, both drawn in favour of Mr. Vishal Bansal. 5. The respondent No.2, who is present in person, confirms that after encashment of the aforesaid two Pay Orders, nothing further shall be due to payable to him by any of the petitioners. He, however, expresses an anxiety as to the encashment of the aforesaid Pay Orders in view of the past conduct of the petitioners. - 1 6. Learned APP for the State submits that the State has no objection to the prayer made in the petition being allowed. She however, submits that in view of the fact that the petitioners have put CRL.M.C. 2287/2010 Page No.3 of 4 into motion the legal machinery of the State, which has resulted in incurring of unnecessary expenditure and wastage of time, they be put to terms for seeking the relief in the present petition. 7. There appears no legal impediment in allowing the prayer made in the present petition. The dispute between the parties is mainly commercial in nature and after receipt of the pay orders by the respondent No.2, no useful purpose shall be achieved by continuing with the proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.88/2010, subject matter of the present petition, as also all the proceedings arising out therefrom stand quashed, subject to encashment of the aforesaid two Pay Ord.ers for the sum of Rs.8,30,000/-, and subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioners with the Registrar General, to be deposited with the Juvenile Justice Fund, within a period of one week. Proof of deposit shall be furnished to the learned APP for the State within one week. 9. The petition is disposed of along with the pending application. File be consigned to the record room. JULY sk 19, 2010 CRL.M .C. 2287 /2010 HIMA KOHLI,J Page No .4 of 4 '1 .