The court dismissed a petition to quash an FIR alleging cheating (IPC 406/420/120B). Rejecting the petitioner's reliance on a March 2016 settlement receipt, the court noted subsequent bank transfers of ₹3.50 lakhs each in August and October 2016, which disproved the claim of full settlement.
The petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 1387/2014 was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
4# $~
| + CRL.M.C. 2282/2 |
016 | |
|---|---|---|
| ABDUL LATIF | Represented by: | ..... Petitioner Mr. Shivam Tripathi, Advocate. |
| versus | ||
| STATE & ANR | Represented by: | ..... Respondents Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State with SI Vineet, PS Anand Vihar. |
| Ms. Archana Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2 with respondent No.2 in person. |
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R % 01.05.2017
agreement was again entered into between the parties on 21st August, 2015 as per which it was stated by the petitioner that the amount of ₹13.10 lakhs had been given through post dated cheques bearing Nos.662670, 662671 and 662672 pursuant to order dated 21st August, 2015 passed by this Court in Bail Application No. 2567/2014. It was further stated that since the cheques were dishonoured the entire amount of ₹13,10,100/- was paid on 29th March, 2016 in full and final settlement of the claims of the respondent No.2.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
MAY 01, 2017/‘vn’
CRL.M.C. 2282/2016
Page 2 of 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition for quashing of the FIR under Sections 406/420/120B IPC should be allowed given the parties claim to have settled the matter.
Whether the receipt executed on 29th March 2016 fully and finally settled the claims of the respondent considering subsequent bank transfers.
Whether the evidence of bank transactions recorded post-dating the receipt vitiates the claim of full settlement asserted in the receipt.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Abdul Latif
State
Respondent No.2
Mukta Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
