B.K. Sondhi vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr.
2000 Latest Caselaw 999 Del

ORDER

Usha Mehra, J.

1. Shri B.K.Sondhi by this petition has sought for the quashing of the FIR No.480/99 registered under Section 420/468/471, IPC at Police Station Mehrauli, New Delhi. Quashing has been sought primarily on the ground that parties have entered into a compromise. The terms of compromise were filed in Suit No.1693/98 instituted by respondent No.2 against the petitioner regarding the purchase of the farm house belonging to the petitioner and his son. The said suit was filed in the High Court of Delhi, registered as Suit No.1693/98 titled as "Tarun Pal Singh Vs. Jai Sondhi & Ors." The cause of action pleaded in the suit was identical to the complaint lodged by the respondent No. 2 which culminated into the registration of FIR No.480/99. During the pendency of that suit, the petitioner and the respondent filed complaints against each other. On the basis of their respective complaints two FIRs were registered. On the complaint of the petitioner FIR No.112/99 was registered and on the complaint of respondent No.2 FIR No.480/99 was registered. Now since the settlement has been arrived at between the parties whereby they jointly filed an application under Order 23 Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, which was registered as I.A. No.7932/99 and the compromise having been recorded by the learned Single Judge on the original side of this count, therefore, petitioner has sought for the quashing of FIR No.480/99, registered against him.

2. In order to appreciate his contentions briefly stated the facts, are that petitioner and his son Jai Sondhi were joint owner of Farm House known as Sondhi Farm House situated at Village Sant Bari, District Mehrauli, New Delhi. It was the version of respondent No. 2 that the said Farm House was sold by petitioner to him. Agreement to Sell and other documents were executed by the petitioner. The General Power of Attorney alleged to be executed by his son Jai Sondhi in favour of the petitioner was in fact forged. Thus petitioner tried to cheat the respondent No.2.

3. Petitioner on the other hand filed a complaint against the father of respondent No.2 and other persons alleging therein that respondents forcibly entered his premises and under threat forced him to sign certain documents and fabricated General Power of Attorney purportedly to be executed by his son in his favour. Accordingly, on petitioner's complaint FIR No. 112/99 was registered against accused persons at Police Station Chitranjan Park, under Section 452/506/43 IPC. Whereas on the complaint of respondent No.2 FIR No.480/99 under Section 420/468/471, IPC was registered at Police Station Mehrauli against the petitioner. As already pointed out above respondent No.2 also filed a suit for specific performance in the High Court of Delhi. In the said suit, parties entered into a compromise. Compromise deed was filed in the Court. As per the terms of the deed of agreement arrived at between the parties, respondent No.2 herein, plaintiff before learned Single Judge, had stated that he had no claims, right, title or interest in the property measuring 12 Bighas and 12 Biswas, comprising Khasra No. 991 (4-16), 992(4-16) and 993(3-0). That on the basis of the said agreement respondent No.2 surrendered the possession of the property to the present petitioner. On the basis of the said compromise the suit was dismissed and the interim orders were vacated. One of the terms of the compromise was that parties would withdraw the civil and criminal litigation initiated against each other. In pursuance to the said term of the compromise, petitioner got his case registered as FIR No.112/99 lodged by him against the father of respondent No.2 and others quashed from this Court in Crl. Writ No. 766/99 titled as Ajit Singh Oberoi & Anr. Vs. State & Anr., on 20th August,1999.

4. It is in this backdrop the petitioner is seeking quashing of the FIR No.480/99 lodged by respondent No.2 against him. Notice was issued to respondent No.2 who has filed an affidavit stating that matter has been amicably settled between them and that FIR bearing No.480/99 under Section 420/468/471, IPC registered at Police Station Mehrauli, may be quashed.

5. Counsel for the State contends that offence under Section 420 IPC can be compounded but not the offences covered under the provision of Section 468/471 IPC which deal with forgery, therefore, FIR No. 480/99 cannot be quashed. We are afraid we find no substance in this contention for the obvious reason that the FIR lodged by petitioner bearing No.112/99 was under Section 452/506/34 IPC. Section 452 is not compoundable still this Court on account of compromise arrived at between the parties quashed the FIR lodged by the petitioner against father of respondent No. 2 vide order dated 20th August,2000. It was observed in the said order passed in Crl. M. No. 7999/99 and Crl. Writ No. 766/99 that: "Learned counsels for the parties state that the disputes between their respective clients have been settled. They say that both the parties want to live in peace and harmony and pray that FIR No.112/99 under Section 452/506/34 IPC, PS Chitranjan Park, New Delhi be quashed. We order accordingly.

6. It is in terms of the same compromise that the petitioner is seeking quashing of the FIR No.480/99 for which the complainant has no objection. Even otherwise the allegations of forgery in the facts of this case have prima facie not made out because the case of the petitioner through out had been that he never sold the property and that he never executed any document and in particular the agreement to sell. When the execution of agreement to sell was denied where was the question of giving the alleged Power of Attorney. Moreover, in the civil suit, filed by respondent No.2 on the basis of alleged agreement to sell, a compromise has already been arrived at pursuant to which respondent No.2 himself stated that he was not claiming any right, title or interest in the property on the basis of the said agreement to sell. This shows that contention of the petitioner may not be completely wrong. Petitioner's son is settled abroad. Petitioner has placed on record the Special Power of Attorney executed by his son in his favour which is dully authenticated by a Notary Public dated 8th September,1998. The petitioner was a joint owner of the property with his son. There was no reason for him to forge the Power of Attorney. No prima facie evidence has been placed on record to show that the alleged Power of Attorney was forged by the petitioner. In this view of the matter we find no substance in the argument of Ms.Mukta Gupta.

7. In view of our above discussion we order that the FIR No.480/99 registered under Section 420/468/471 IPC at Police Station Mehrauli, New Delhi, as well as proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed. Order accordingly. Petition stands disposed of.