Delhi High Court · 2010
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
ln view of compromise arrived at, the petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Through: Ms. Princy Ponnan, Advocate VCTSUS NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State Mr. Sunil Kumar, Sl, PS Uttam Nagar Mr. Ritesh Bahri, Mr. Ajay Kumar Bansal, Advocates for Ms. Pooja R-2 along with Ms. pooja GORAM: JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA % ORDER
13.12.2010 a This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 33712003 under Section 4il8N4OO read with Section 34 lpc pS Uttam Nagar on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. In terms of the compromise, balance amount of Rs.2,12,0001- has been handed over to the complainant by way of a bank draft/PO. The complainant is present along w1h her Counsel and states that in view of settlement, she does not want to pursue ' this FIR further. ln view of compromise arrived at, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 337/2003 PS Uttam Nagar and proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. The comptainant is identified by the tO. I I DECEMBER 13, 2010 SHIV NAAMKINGRA,J -/ Signature Not Verified Signing Date:03.08.2024 17:21:43 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. -Crr* U,/alrt ,"8)uu r/s. Us> u|r . 5 ( $-27* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI cRL.M.C.3855/2010 KAPIL NARANG & ORS Through: Ms. Princy Ponnan, Advocate ..... Petitioner VCTSUS NCT OF DELHI & ANR Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP for State ..... Respondent CORAM: JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA % Crl.MA 108/2011 ORDER
07.01.2011 This application has been made for correction of an error in order dated 13rh December 2010 whereby this Court quashed the FIR No.337 of 2003. lt is stated by the counsel for the applicant that the correct FIR number was 914 of 2007. A perusal of petition would show that the petitioners made this clerical error in the title of the petitiongo itself while in the body of the petition, the petitioners have mentioned FIR No.914 of 2OO7.The error &rnorder dated 13th December 2010 is on account of incorrect statement made in the title of the petition by the petitioners. However, for the reasons given therein, the application is allowed and the order dated 13th December 2010 is modified to the extent that the FIR number be read as 914 o'f 2007 instead of 337 of 2003. With above order, the application stands disposed of. JANUARY 07,2011 SHIV NARA ,ho,,*o^o,, r.t 2
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: ln view of compromise arrived at, the petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Delhi High Court, on 13 Dec 2010. The bench was SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.