Delhi High Court
Dhabalendu Samantha And Anr. vs State & Anr. on 12 January, 2011
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4569-70/2005
Decided on 12.01.2011
IN THE MATTER OF :
DHABALENDU SAMANTHA AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. J.M. Kalia, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State
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 the Complaint Case
No.1180/2004 lodged by respondent No.2, pending in the Court of learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts and quashing of the order of
summoning dated 25.04.2005.
2. Counsel for the petitioners states that the basis of the complaint
lodged by respondent No.2 against the petitioners as also the three others is
a flat bearing No.A-2/603, Glaxo Apartments, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, New
Delhi. It is submitted that respondent No.2 had executed a lease deed in
respect of the aforesaid flat in favour of one Mr. Sudhir Saran, the then
Dean of M/s IILM Academy of Higher Learning on 25.11.2002. The present
petitioners claimed to be the guests/caretaker of Mr. Sudhir Saran at the
premises in question for a short while. It is the stand of the petitioners that
in April 2004, respondent No.2 tried to take forcible possession of the
aforesaid flat in the absence of Mr. Sudhir Saran, seeing which one of the
neighbours namely, Mrs. Pavni Sinha, W/o. Mr. Amitabh Sinha informed the
Police and FIR No.152/2004 was registered against respondent No.2 and
other accused persons, who were removed from the disputed flat. In
November 2004, as a counterblast to the aforesaid FIR, respondent No.2
allegedly lodged the aforesaid criminal complaint against the petitioners,
who were residing in the same complex and Mrs. Pavni Sinha and her
husband, Mr. Amitabh Sinha, apart from Mr. Sudhir Saran and his wife. All
the persons named in the complaint were summoned by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate in February 2005. Simultaneously, respondent No.2
filed a suit for possession and recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profit and
damages against M/s IILM Academy of Higher Learning, Mr. Sudhir Saran,
Mr. Amitabh Sinha and petitioner No.1, registered as Civil Suit No.234/2005.
3. It is submitted that during the pendency of the aforesaid
proceedings, the parties arrived at a settlement. Counsel for the petitioners
draws the attention of this Court to the documents filed by him on
21.04.2008. The said documents include a certified copy of the plaint in Civil
Suit No.234/2005, copies of the applications jointly filed by respondent No.2
(plaintiff therein), Dr. Sudhir Saran (defendant No.2 therein) and Mr.
Amitabh Sinha(defendant No. therein), under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC,
recording the compromise arrived at between them and copies of the
statements of the parties and the order dated 03.02.2007 passed by the
learned ADJ recording the aforesaid settlement. A perusal of the aforesaid
documents reveal that respondent No.2 (plaintiff in the aforesaid suit)
arrived at a settlement with defendants No.2 and 3 therein, in terms of
which it was agreed that Mr. Sudhir Saran would hand over vacant physical
possession of the aforesaid flat to respondent No.2/plaintiff, subject to the
latter's co-operating in quashing of the criminal complaint filed against
defendants No.2 and 3, their wives, drivers and all others.
4. Counsel for the petitioners states that the vacant physical
possession of the flat was subsequently handed over by the aforesaid
persons to respondent No.2. He also draws the attention of this Court to the
order dated 08.12.2006 passed in Crl.M.C. 2880/2005 entitled Smt. Pavni
Sinha and Anr. vs. The State and Anr., whereby the summoning order dated
23.02.2005 issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the complaint
filed by respondent No.2, was quashed qua the petitioners therein. It is
stated by the counsel for the petitioners that in view of the fact that the
dispute between the landlord and the tenants that is, Mr. Sudhir Saran and
M/S IILM Academy stands settled, there is no reason to continue with the
complaint qua his client, which is also liable to be quashed, apart from
setting aside the summoning order.
5. Notice in the present petition was issued on 16.09.2005.
Thereafter appearance was entered on behalf of respondent No.2. However,
as none appeared for respondent No.2 on a number of subsequent dates,
vide order dated 05.08.2008, court notice was issued to the counsel for
respondent No.2 as also to respondent No.2 himself. On 11.08.2009, the
presence of the counsel for respondent No.2 was recorded. As he had stated
that he had not received any instructions from his client, the Vakalatnama of
another counsel on the record was taken note of and notice was also issued
to the said counsel, Smt. Chitra Markandya. Respondent No.2 as also his
counsel were duly served for 15.10.2009. However, none appeared on
behalf of respondent No.2. Thereafter, the submission on behalf of the
petitioner was recorded in the order dated 30.11.2009 that as the dispute
between respondent No.2 and his tenant was amicably resolved, the present
petition was also liable to be allowed. Counsel for the petitioners reiterates
the aforesaid submissions today.
6. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case and in view of the fact that the landlord tenant dispute between the
parties already stands amicably resolved, this Court deems it appropriate to
quash the summoning order dated 25.04.2005 qua the petitioners as issued
by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 1180/2004.
7. The petition is disposed of.
(HIMA KOHLI)
JANUARY 12, 2011 JUDGE
rkb
