Delhi High Court
Surender Kumar Sharma vs State & Ors. on 30 March, 2016
Author: Siddharth Mridul
#11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 30th March, 2016
+ W.P.(CRL) 310/2016
SURENDER KUMAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. M.L. Yadav, Advocate
versus
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Kamna Vohra, ASC (Crl.)
SI Rizwan Khan, PS Seelampur
Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate for R-2
along with respondent no. 2
Ms. Sangita Bhayana, Adv. for R-3
along with Respondent no. 3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking
quashing of FIR No. 553/2013, under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC
registered at Police Station- Seelampur, Delhi and the proceedings arising
therefrom.
2. The subject FIR came to be registered on an allegation by Shri Kailash
Pathak, the respondent no. 2/complainant herein that Shri Surender Kumar
Sharma, the petitioner herein, who was also the joint owner of the subject
property, disposed of the same to Ms. Muntazim Fatima, the respondent no.
3 herein after forging the complainant's signatures on the relevant
documents.
3. Counsel for the parties state that subsequent to the registration of the
subject FIR, the parties have entered into a Settlement Deed dated 28 th
January, 2016 whereby the dispute between the parties has been amicably
resolved. The said Settlement Deed is annexed to the present petition as
Annexure 'P-5'. The salient terms and conditions of the said Settlement
Deed are as follows:-
"1. In the year 2008, the First Party and Second Party
invested some money and purchased Flat bearing no. 285,
Double Storey, Welcome, Seelampur-III, Delhi-110053
with the joint funds which was later on sold by the First
Party to Smt. Muntazim Fatima without the consent of the
second party with which disputes arose between the
parties.
2. The parties entered into amicable settlement vide deed
of Memorandum of Understanding dated 6.2.2015 wherein
out of the sale proceed the Second Party received a sum of
Rs. 5 lacs in cash from the First Party and on 6.2.2014, the
Second Party received further sum of Rs. 10 lacs in
addition to the aforesaid sum of Rs. 5 lacs already paid.
Thus a sum of Rs. 15 lacs were paid and received by the
Second Party in entire satisfaction of his claims in relation
thereto.
3. With the aforesaid settlement between the First Party
and Second Party, the First Party filed writ petition for
quashing of FIR No. 553/2013 u/s 420/468/471 IPC PS
Seelampur registered on the complaint of Second Party
against the First Party. Notice was issued by Hon'ble
Delhi High Court the State to file status report.
Accordingly, status report was filed by the State stating
that Smt. Muntazim Fatima was also the effected party in
the case. In view thereof, Smt. Muntazim Fatima was also
made a party in the said writ petition and filed amended
memo of parties thereto whereupon notice was issued to
Smt. Muntazim Fatima whereafter she appeared and stated
that her claim was not satisfied as chain of
documents/original documents had not been supplied to her
by the First Party and objected to the quashing of the FIR
under reference.
4. In the meanwhile, the respondent no. 3 filed a petition
under Section 439(2) of Cr. P.C. being Crl. M.C. No.
5723/2014 titled "Smt. Muntazim Fatima vs. State, NCT of
Delhi & Ors." for cancellation anticipatory bail granted to
the petitioner by learned trial court on the ground that her
claim in the transaction had not been satisfied. In this view
of the matter and in view of the facts explained
hereinabove, the petition filed by the First Party was
withdrawn by the First Party vide order dated 12.8.2015
assuring the Hon'ble Court that First Party would settle the
claim of Smt. Muntazim Fatima.
5. Consequently, the petition filed by Smt. Muntazim
Fatima for cancellation of bail was heard and passed
directions vide order dated 11.9.2015 directing the First
Party and Second Party and the original owner Smt. Inder
Mohini for compliance in terms of the aforesaid order.
Thereafter, vide order dated 23.11.2015, the aforesaid bail
cancellation petition of Third Respondent was disposed of.
6. In a nutshell, the First Party sincerely complied with the
assurance given to the Hon'ble Court while withdrawing
the aforesaid petition whereby the claims of the second
party and Smt. Muntazim Fatima stood fully satisfied.
7. It is agreed between the parties hereto that the second
party shall file an affidavit in support of the petition and
their No Objection for quashing the FIR in the petition
being filed by the First Party.
8. It is stated that the contents of the present settlement
deed have been read over and explained to the parties in
vernacular and having find the same to be true and correct,
the parties have signed this Settlement Deed."
4. Counsel for the parties further state that pursuant to the above-stated
Settlement Deed, the subject property has been jointly sold by Shri Surender
Kumar Sharma (petitioner) and Shri Kailash Pathak (respondent
no.2/complainant) to Ms. Muntazim Fatima, the respondent no. 3 herein by
way of requisite documents including General Power of Attorney and
Agreement to Sell. Further, Shri Kailash Pathak, the respondent
no.2/complainant also acknowledges receipt of his share from the proceeds
of the sale qua the subject property.
5. The parties, who are present in Court in person today and have been
duly identified by the Investigating Officer in the subject FIR namely SI
Rizwan Khan, Police Station- Seelampur, Delhi, state that in view of the
amicable resolution of the dispute as afore-stated, the subject FIR may be
quashed and set aside qua the petitioner herein.
6. In the present case, it is observed that the offences in the subject FIR
do not fall within the exempted categories of serious/heinous offences which
ought not to be quashed on the ground of an amicable resolution of the
disputes. [Ref. Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported as (2012)
10 SCC 303]. The offences alleged to have been committed in the subject
FIR are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society.
7. In view of the foregoing, since the dispute that led to the registration
of the subject FIR has been settled amicably by and between the parties
without any undue influence, pressure or coercion; and the settlement
between the parties is lawful, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding
with the subject FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom.
8. Resultantly, the FIR No. 553/2013, under Sections 420/467/468/471
IPC registered at Police Station- Seelampur, Delhi and the proceedings
arising therefrom are hereby set aside and quashed qua the petitioner subject
to his depositing a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with the Victims' Compensation
Fund within a period of two weeks from today. A copy of the receipt thereof
shall be provided to the Investigating Officer in the subject FIR.
9. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of
accordingly.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
MARCH 30, 2016
sd
