Delhi High Court
Desh Deepak Malhotra vs State And Others on 21 July, 2010
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl. M.C. 2301/2010 and Crl.M.A. 12470/2010
Decided on 21.07.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
DESH DEEPAK MALHOTRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mrs. Ritu Aggarwal, Advocate
versus
STATE AND OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State
Mr. Rajan Chaudhary, Advocate with respondent
No.2 in person.
Mr. Achyutanand Shukla, Advocate with respondents
No.3 and 4 in person.
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 petitioner under Section 482
of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.347/2005 lodged by
the respondent No.2 under Section 420/468/471/34 IPC with Police Station:
Patel Nagar on 25.06.2005.
2. It is averred in the petition that certain disputes and differences
arose between the petitioner, who was a tenant of respondent No.2, in
respect of premises bearing No.2150/1, Main Patel Road, Near Shadi Pur
Depot, Opp. PS West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. It is stated that originally, the
property belonged to the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.2, one
Chaudhary Raghunath, who let out the same to the predecessor-in-interest
of the petitioner, Shri Agya Ram Malhotra. In the complaint lodged by the
respondent No.2/complainant against the petitioner and six other co-
accused, it is stated that the petitioner alongwith the other co-accused had
illegally sold the property to respondents No.3 and 4, behind his back for a
sum of Rs.30 lacs, out of which, the petitioner claimed that he had received
a sum of Rs.2.50 lacs. This compelled the respondent No.2 to lodge a
complaint with the police, which has resulted in registering of the aforesaid
FIR.
3. The parties are present in Court and state that now all the
disputes between the parties pertaining to the aforesaid property, which are
purely civil in nature, have been resolved in terms of which, the
complainant/respondent No.2 confirms that now he is party to the sale of
the property to respondents No.3 and 4, for a sum of Rs.2 crores and that
the petitioner has also agreed to pay a sum of Rs.4.25 lacs to the
respondents No.3 and 4 in terms of a settlement. It is further stated by the
counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 that they had approached this Court by
way of a separate petition, registered as Crl.M.C.721/2010 wherein a
settlement was arrived at between the parties, which was duly accepted vide
order dated 08.03.2010 and the aforesaid FIR qua respondents No.3 and 4
(petitioners in the aforesaid petition) was quashed. Now, the petitioner also
seeks quashing of the same FIR qua him.
4. Counsels for the parties state that a sum of Rs.6 lacs was
deposited by the petitioner by way of a FDR before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate in the proceeding arising from case FIR No.347/2005 and as per
the agreement arrived at between the parties, out of the aforesaid amount,
the petitioner has no objection to release of a sum of Rs.4.25 lacs jointly in
favour of respondents No.3 and 4, while the remaining amount alongwith
interest has been agreed to be returned to the petitioner.
5. The parties are present in Court and confirm having arrived at
the aforesaid settlement without any undue influence, coercion or pressure
from any quarter. The complainant/respondent No.2 submits that he has
no objection to the aforesaid FIR, lodged against the petitioner amongst
others, being quashed qua him. Learned APP also states that he has no
objection to the aforesaid settlement being accepted by the Court and the
prayer made in the petition being allowed, subject to the parties being
burdened with costs.
6. Having regard to the fact that the nature of dispute between the
parties is mainly civil in nature and has now been amicably resolved in terms
of the Agreement dated 02.07.2010 (Page 54 to 58 of the appeal paper
book) arrived at between the parties, there appears no legal impediment in
allowing the present petition. However, considering the fact that on account
of the petitioner, the legal machinery of the State has been set into motion,
which has resulted in incurring of unnecessary expenditure and wastage of
time, while quashing FIR No.347/2005 registered by the respondent No.2
against the petitioner and allowing the present petition, it is directed that the
petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.20,000/- in favour of the Registrar General
of this Court, to be deposited in the Juvenile Justice Fund, within a period of
two weeks. Copy of proof of deposit of the aforesaid costs shall be furnished
to the learned APP for the State within two weeks.
7. The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending applications.
(HIMA KOHLI)
JULY 21, 2010 JUDGE
rkb
