HARI DEV PANDEY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL. M. A. No. 7857/2008 in Crl. M. C. No. 2112/2008 allowed, subject to just exceptions. Crl. M. C. No. 2112/2008

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner No. 1 and 2 were the employees of respondent No. 2 and allegedly appropriated the amount of rs. 1. 50 lakh entrusted to them. Pursuant to the complaint by the respondent no. 2, an FIR under Sections 408/34 of Indian Penal Code bearing No. 688 of 1999 at Police Station Darya Ganj, Delhi, was registered. Respondent No. 2 is present in the Court and states that he has settled his disputes with his employees, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, and he does not wish to continue proceedings against petitioners.

(3.) LET the statement of respondent No. 2 be recorded. The statement of respondent No. 2 has been recorded. The matter has been settled by the respondent No. 2 and petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. No useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings under Section 408/34 of Indian penal Code. In the facts and circumstances, it will be in the interest of justice to quash the FIR No. 688/1999, Police Station Darya Ganj, Delhi, under sections 408/34 of Indian Penal Code.