Mahesh Kumar vs State ( Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 2 September, 2016

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
submitted that the respondent no. 2 present in the Court has been
identified to be the complainant/first informant by her counsel.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is that on 25.07.2015, son
of the complainant, petitioner herein came to the house of the
complainant when the complainant came back from the house osf her
neighbour at about 8.30 am, she was shocked to see that her son was
gone and her jewellery and registry papers of four plots were not in
the box.
Thereafter, the complainant got lodged a complaint following

Crl.M.C. 482/2016 Page 1 of 7
which, the FIR in question was registered against the petitioner. An
amicable settlement was arrived at between the parties during the
pendency of the matter.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply

*