AJAY KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was booked for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal code vide FIR No. 121/2002 registered at Mukherjee Nagar Police Station on 14th March, 2002 at the instance of respondent no. 2-complainant M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Limited. THE petitioner was booked in four other cases also of similar nature vide different FIRs registered at Mukherjee Nagar Police Station. THE petitioner had got financed motor vehicles from the said complainant. THE complainant Company filed criminal complaints in the Court of the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate which directed the police to register FIRs against the petitioner-accused herein. In compliance of that direction different FIRs included the FIR of the present case came to be registered by the police. During the investigation stage, the complainant and the petitioner-accused arrived at some amicable settlement in respect of the dues of the complainant Company under various hire-purchase agreements including the one in respect of which the present case was registered.

(2.) AFTER the settlement between the complainant and the petitioner five petitions were filed by the petitioner for quashing of the FIRs registered against him. All the five petitions at one stage were being taken up together and the complainant Company had entered appearance in all the cases through its counsel who had confirmed on 27 th September, 2007 that there had been a settlement between the complainant Company and the petitioner herein. Then after hearing the submissions from both the sides all the cases were reserved for judgment. Vide common judgment dated 22nd November, 2007 four petitions of the petitioner were allowed and it appears that due to some mistake the present case was left out and the file of the present case was sent to the Registry along with other disposed of petitions. Subsequently the Registry on noticing that the present petition had not been disposed of listed the matter before the Court and thereafter notices were ordered to be issued to the counsel for the parties. Though counsel for the petitioner as well as the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State appeared in response to the notices there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant Company despite service of notice upon its counsel.