TROY NIEMANS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the petitioners and respondent are present in person. They state that they have settled their disputes amicably.

(2.) Petitioners are foreign nationals. They were given a job by the respondent for editing the film, and a regular contract was entered into. The petitioners in their capacity as Editor and Assistant Editor were entrusted by the complainant with editing task and handed over footage of the film, tapes and data in relation to the film. On the night of 21st - 22nd October, 2003, the petitioners without completing the contractual task were removing the footage of the film from the country. While they were at the airport they were detained on the complaint of respondent No. 2 for criminally misappropriating their property. It appears that there was some dispute as to the dues towards each other.

(3.) Parties have now amicably settled their disputes with the intervention of mutual friends, in terms of the compromise deed dated 6th November, 2003 (Page 21). The investigation is still at the nascent stage. All dues towards each other have been settled. No useful purpose will be served in continuing with the investigation as it will hamper their future career and relationship. Having settled their disputes once for all the detention of the petitioners in this country will be of no use. In the result, the petition is allowed, impugned FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.