Sanjay Jain vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 667 Del

$~19
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+            CRL.M.C. No.2145/2011

%            Judgment delivered on:31st January, 2012

SANJAY JAIN                                                ..... Petitioner
                              Through : Mr.Ajay Mehrotra and Ms.Alpana,
                              Advs.

                     versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.                  ..... Respondents
                   Through : Mr.Navin Sharma, APP for State
                   with SI Bharat Singh, police station Gandhi
                   Nagar, Delhi in person.
                   Mr.Yash Tandon and Mr.Bhupesh Narula,
                   Advs for R-2 with respondent in person.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT


SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Vide instant petition, petitioner has prayed to quash the FIR No.360/2004 dated 06.10.2004 registered under Section 406 Indian Penal Code, 1860 against petitioner at police station Gandhi Nagar, Delhi on complaint of Mr.Yogesh Mehrotra, since deceased.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that vide proceedings dated 22.02.2010 before Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi all the issues qua the aforementioned FIR were resolved by both the parties and the respondent No.2 was signatory to the said terms.

3. Smt.Manju Mehrotra, widow of deceased complainant Mr.Yogesh Mehrotra, who is present in the Court with her learned counsel Mr.Yash Tandon, is also one of the signatories to the said settlement. However, in the changed circumstances, Smt.Manju Mehrotra has now appeared in placed of deceased complainant.

4. Mr.Yash Tandon, learned counsel for Smt.Manju Mehrotra, widow of deceased complainant submits that her husband died way back on 25.11.2010, and late Harsh Narain Malhotra, her father-in-law had pre-deceased to her husband. Thereafter, her both sons abandoned alone her and she is suffering from cataract and arthritis due to which she is unable to move and has no independent source of income.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that though she is signatory to the said settlement, however, in the interest of justice, some amount may be directed to be paid by petitioner to her so that at least she can get her treatment.

6. Indisputably, vide proceedings dated 22.02.2010, all the issues had been settled and the complainant agreed to get the aforementioned FIR quashed. Since, respondent No.2 - complainant is no more in this world, therefore, his widow Smt.Manju Mehrotra has joined the proceedings before this Court.

7. I am conscious that the terms recorded at Mediation Centre has a binding effect upon the parties and the coordinate bench of this Court had already decided the similar issue in Surinder Kaur & Ors v.

Pritam Singh & Ors 154 (2008) DLT 598 wherein it has been held in para No.5 & 6 as under:-

"5. It may be noted at this stage that this Court has already framed Mediation and Conciliation Rules, 2004 which have been notified vide Notification No.171/Rules/DHC dated 11th August, 2005. Rule 24 and 25 thereof are relevant for our purposes which are reproduced below:

„Rule 24: Settlement Agreement.

(a) Where an agreement is reached between the parties in regard to all the issues in the suit or proceeding or some of the issues, the same shall be reduced to writing and signed by the parties or their constituted attorney. If any counsel has represented the parties, the conciliator/mediator may obtain his signature also on the settlement agreement.

(b) The agreement of the parties so signed shall be submitted to the mediator /conciliator who shall, with a covering letter signed by him, forward the same to the Court in which the suit or proceeding is pending.

(c) Where no agreement is arrived at between the parties, before the time limit stated in Rule 18 or where, the mediator/ conciliator is of the view that no settlement is possible, he shall report the same to the Court in writing.

Rule 25: Court to fix a date for recording settlement and passing decree.

(a) On receipt of any settlement, the court shall fix a date of hearing normally within seven days but in any case not beyond a period of fourteen days. On such date of hearing, if the court is satisfied that the parties have settled their dispute(s), it shall pass a decree in accordance with terms thereof.

(b) If the settlement dispose of only certain issues arising in the suit or proceeding, on the basis of which any decree is passed as stated in Clause (a), the court shall proceed further to decide remaining issues.‟

6. Since the settlement agreement has already been arrived at and all the parties have signed the agreement, decree can be passed in terms thereof in view of the provisions contained in Rule 25, if the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled their dispute."

8. Keeping the settled law into view I am of the opinion that the settlement dated 22.02.2010 has binding effect and the petitioner is entitled to get the aforementioned FIR quashed.

9. Accordingly, FIR No.360/2004 registered at police station Gandhi Nagar, Delhi against petitioner and proceedings emanating thereto are hereby quashed.

10. However, as wife of deceased complainant is helpless lady and suffering from arthritis and her sons have abandoned her. There is no one who can take care of her at this age and she has no source of income, therefore, in the interest of justice, while quashing the

aforesaid FIR, I direct the petitioner to pay a costs of ` 25,000/- as in this process, government machinery has been pressed into and precious public time has been consumed.

11. The petitioner is further directed to pay above mentioned costs in favour of Mrs.Manju Mehrotra, widow of deceased complainant, within four weeks from today. Proof thereof shall be placed on record by petitioner.

12. Consequently, Criminal M.C.No.2145/2011 is allowed and stands disposed of in above terms.

13. Dasti.

SURESH KAIT, J JANUARY 31, 2012 Mk