SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Pradeep Gupta & Anr. vs The State & Anr. on 6 September, 2018

% Judgment delivered on: 06.09.2018

+ CRL.M.C. 4517/2018
PRADEEP GUPTA ANR ….. Petitioners


THE STATE ANR ….. Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Piyush Gupta with Mr. Amit
Sharma, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Kamal Kumar Ghai, APP for the
Mr. Sumit Choudhary with Mr.
Kanwar Kochhar and Ms. Aakanksha
Bansal, Advocates for the
complainant with complainant in person.
SI Kuldeep Singh, PS Model Town.




Crl.M.A.31499/2018 (exemption)

Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.C. 4517/2018

1. The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.238/2017 under

CRL.M.C. 4517/2018 Page 1 of 3
Section 406 IPC, Police Station Model Town, based on a settlement.

2. The subject FIR has been registered consequent to a business
transaction between the complainant and the petitioners, wherein, it is
contended that a sum of Rs.1.5 crores was given to the petitioners as a
loan for importing iron ore. Subsequently, the parties fell out and the
disputes commenced.

3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the parties have
settled their disputes through the process of mediation held before
Delhi High Court Mediation Conciliation Centre and a settlement
agreement dated 29.08.2018 has been entered into.

4. Learned counsel for the parties submit that not only the subject
dispute, the disputes, which were the subject matter of a civil suit filed
by the respondent No.2, have also been settled through the said
agreement dated 29.08.2018.

5. As per the settlement, the petitioners have agreed to pay a total
sum of Rs.90 lakhs to the respondent No.2/complainant.

6. The respondent No.2 is present in person, represented by a
counsel and is identified by the Investigating Officer. He submits that
he has settled his disputes with the petitioners and has received the
said settlement amount of Rs.90 lakhs. He further submits that he
does not wish to press the complaint against the petitioners any further
and has no objection in case the subject FIR is quashed.

CRL.M.C. 4517/2018 Page 2 of 3

7. In view of the fact that the parties have resolved their disputes
and respondent No. 2 does not wish to press his complaint,
continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and
justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put
to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the
ultimate guiding factor. It would be expedient to quash the subject
FIR and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom.

8. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. FIR No.238/2017
under Section 406 IPC, Police Station Model Town, based on a
settlement and the consequent proceedings emanating there from are

9. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

SEPTEMBER 06, 2018

CRL.M.C. 4517/2018 Page 3 of 3

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation