l 2. * . IN THE HIGH OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI · + CRL.M.C. 979/2011 RAJESH MISHRA & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Mr: Harish Malik, Advocate and petitioners No.1 and 2 in person. versus STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. M.N . .Dudeja, APP for the State with IO/SI Dinesh, Kumar, PS Connaught Place. Mr. Varun Pareekh, Advocate with Mr. Satish Kumar Sharma, authorized representative of respondent No.2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI ORDER 0/o · 04.04.2011 1. . lhe present petition. is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.36/2004 lodged by Na.2/complainant, employer of the ' ' ·petitioner No.1 ur1der Sections' 408/420/468/471/477A IPC, registered 1 . • with Police Station: Conna,ug·ht Place, New Delhi, and all proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Counsel for the petitioners states that while petitioner No.1 ' ' is the former of respondent No.2/complainant, petitioner No.2 is the wife of. petitioner No.1. As per the complaint filed by • CRL.M.C. 979/2011 Page 1 of 5 ' I· 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 respondent No.2/complainant against petitioner ·No.1, who was working as an Accountant in their office, both the petitioners had collusively forged letters/faxes to a bank, fromwhere petitioner No.1 personally collected pay orders ·issued in his name and that of his associates as also in the name of a company fraudulently opened by . I him. It is further stated in the complaint that as a result of the aforesaid acts of forgery and fraud, the petitioners withdrew a sum to the tune of crore from the account of respondent No.2/complainant maintained with the aforesaid bank. During the course of the investigation, the parties are stated to have arrived at a settlement as recorded in the Settlement Agreement dated 06.09.2006 (Annexure P- 4) and the Supplementary Agreement dated 18.01.2011 (Annexure P- 5). Counsel for .the petitioners states that in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, a sum of has been paid by the petitioners to respondent No.2/complainant in tranches and it is stated that the remaining sum of lacs shall be paid to respondent 1:J No.2/complainant in terms of the Supplementary Agreement dated 18.01.2011 and the averments contained in para 5 of the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, states that the FIR be quashed. CRL.M.C. 979/2011 Page 2 of5 3. Counsel for respondent No.2/complainant is present in Court alongwith. the authorizE;!d representative, Mr. Satish Kumar Sharma. He ·states on instructions that his client has arrived at a settlement with the petitioners of its. own free will and volition and without any undue influence or coercion from any quarter. He further confirms having received a· sum of from the petitioners and states that. the remaining sum of lacs shall be paid in terms of the Supplementary Agreement dated 18.01.2011 and the averments contained in para 5 of the petition. He states that the present petition is supported by the affidavit of the authorized representative of resp6ndent No.2/complainant. He states that the Board of Directors of respondent No.2/complainant vide a Resolution passed in the meeting dated 19.03.2011 hC)s authorized Mr5atish. Kumar Sharma, Senior Manager, (Project Controlling & Finance) to enter into a settlement with· the petitioners and appear iri the present The sai.d Resolution is enclosed with the petition and marked as 4 Annexure R-1. He, therefore, states that he has no objection to the FIR being quashed. 4. · Learned APP for the State submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, he has no objection to the CRL.M.C. 979/201.1. Page 3 of5 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. 5. 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.36/2004 lodged by respondent No.2/complainant with Police Station: Connaught Place, New Delhi, and all arising therefrom are quashed, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall collectively pay costs of out of which a sum of shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee and the remaining sum of· shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. CRL.M.C. 979/2011 Page 4 of5 ·. \ 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 withfn the same period. 8. The petition is disposed of. File be consigned to the record room. APRIL.. 04, 2011 rkb CRL.M.C. 979/201.1 HIMA KOHLI,J Page 5 of5