Pradeep Kumar And Anr. vs State And Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3580 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         CRL. M.C. 615/2010


                                                        Decided on 02.08.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :

PRADEEP KUMAR AND ANR.                              ..... Petitioners
                   Through: Mr. R.P. Sharma, Advocate with petitioners
                   No.1 and 2 in person.


                     versus


STATE AND ANR.                                               ..... Respondents
                          Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State with
                          IO/SI Bansi Lal, PS Subji Mandi.
                          Mr. Gurminder Singh Bedi, respondent No.2 in
                          person with his father, Sh. Gurcharan Singh Bedi.

CORAM

* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

     1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may           No
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?          No

     3. Whether the judgment should be                  No
        reported in the Digest?


HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482

of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.425/2004 lodged

against them by the respondent No.2, whose father is a tenant of part of the

first floor of premises bearing No.8673, Siddiqui Manzil, Bahargarh,

Roshanara Road, Delhi, owned by them. On the basis of the complaint, an

FIR was registered with Police Station: Subzi Mandi.

2. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioners that the genesis of

the dispute between the parties is the tenanted premises under the

occupation of father of the respondent No.2 and his family. The details of

the pending litigations between the parties have been set out in the

Agreement dated 03.07.2009, entered into between the petitioners and the

father of respondent No.2 (Annexure-C). Counsel for the petitioners submits

that apart from the two civil litigations, mentioned at Serial No.5 and 6 at

internal page 2 of the aforesaid agreement, there are four other litigations,

out of which those covered under the FIR, subject matter of the present

petition, are mentioned at Serial No.1 and 2. It is stated by the counsel for

the petitioners that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the

parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of all other litigations except

for the present FIR. As a result of the settlement, the petitioners have

agreed to pay a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- to the father of respondent No.2, out

of which, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- has already been paid. The balance sum

of Rs.2,50,000/- has been agreed to be paid by the petitioners immediately

upon the vacant physical possession of the tenanted premises being handed

over by the father of respondent No.2 to them.

3. The respondent No.2 and his father are present in Court and

they confirm that the aforesaid settlement has been arrived at with the

petitioners of their own free will and volition. Respondent No.2 also informs

the Court that after executing the Agreement dated 03.07.2009, another

Agreement dated 31.08.2009 was executed between the parties on the

same lines, so as to extend the time to complete the terms and conditions of

the earlier Agreement. He states that immediately upon receipt of the

balance sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, his father shall hand over vacant peaceful

possession of the tenanted premises to the petitioners, which fact is

confirmed by his father as well. Both, the respondent No.2 and his father

are identified by the counsel for the petitioners.

4. The parties also draw the attention of this Court to the order

dated 10.07.2009 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, recording the

compromise arrived at between them and the permission granted to the

petitioners to withdraw the eviction petition against the father of respondent

No.2.

5. Learned APP states that he has no objection to the present

petition being allowed in view of the settlement arrived at between the

parties.

6. The aforesaid settlement is stated to have been arrived at

between the parties of their own free will and volition and without any undue

influence or coercion from any quarter, which fact is also confirmed by the

parties, who are present in Court. Having regard to the fact that the nature

of dispute between the parties is primarily civil in nature and relates to a

tenanted premises and the present FIR is only an offshoot thereof, there

appears no justification in pursuing the present FIR, which is still at the

stage of framing of charges, when all other litigations between them have

been amicably resolved.

7. In this view of the matter, the present petition is allowed. FIR

No.425/2004 stands quashed, subject to the condition that the petitioners

No.1 and 2 shall collectively pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- and the respondent

No.2 shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs for having set in motion the

State machinery. The said costs shall be deposited with the Advocates'

Welfare Fund within two weeks. Copy of proof of deposit of the aforesaid

costs shall be furnished to the learned APP for the State within two weeks.

8. The petition is disposed of. File be consigned to the record room.

                                                             (HIMA KOHLI)
AUGUST 02, 2010                                                 JUDGE
rkb