Delhi High Court
Ritesh Bansal & Ors. vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. on 19 September, 2016
$~42 & 43
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 19th SEPTEMBER, 2016
+ CRL.M.C.10/2014
RITESH BANSAL & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.Abhay Kumar, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP with SI
Surender Pal Hudda.
Mr.U.A.Khan, Advocate for R2 along
with R2 in person.
AND
+ CRL.M.C.1182/2016
MANSI BANSAL ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Abhay Kumar, Advocate.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP with SI
Surender Pal Hudda.
Mr.U.A.Khan, Advocate for R2 along
with R2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
Crl.M.C. 10/2014 & connected matter. Page 1 of 3
S.P.GARG, J. (Oral)
1. Present petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed by
the petitioners for quashing of the FIR No.357/2012 registered under Section
420 IPC at PS Krishan Nagar. Status report is on record. Petitions are
contested by the respondent No.2.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties including the
counsel for the complainant and have examined the file. Undisputedly, the
petitioners are facing trial in case FIR No.357/2012 registered under Section
420 IPC at PS Krishan Nagar. Admittedly, the parties had resolved their
disputes vide compromise deed dated 11.12.2012.
3. The complainant is present with counsel. I have enquired from
the complainant whether the matter has been settled amicably with the
petitioners and the terms and conditions of the settlement have been
complied with. Complainant's counsel urged that the terms and conditions
of the compromise deed have not been adhered to by the petitioners and the
complainant is not agreeable for quashing of the FIR on the basis of said
settlement.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners urges that the complainant
cannot be permitted to resile from the settlement arrived at vide compromise
deed dated 11.12.2012. She has already received substantial amount
pursuant to the said settlement. She cannot be permitted to deviate from the
express terms and conditions of the settlement to claim that `4 lacs more
were to be paid by the petitioners.
5. Present petitions have been filed for quashing of the FIR in
question on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties vide
compromise deed dated 11.12.2012. The complainant, however, is not
agreeable to the quashing of the FIR on the basis of the said settlement. Her
contention is that the last payment which the petitioners were required to pay
as per the terms and conditions of the said settlement was not given to her. A
cheque for a sum of `1 lac given by the petitioners on the presentation was
dishonoured. The said payment has yet not been made to her. It is further
contended that the petitioners had agreed to pay `4 lacs more as per oral
agreement and till the said payments are given, she cannot give consent for
quashing of the FIR.
6. A dispute has arisen between the parties regarding the terms
and conditions of the settlement. There is also controversy between the
parties whether `4 lacs more was to be given by the petitioners to the
complainant. All these disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in
the present proceedings.
7. Since the complainant is not agreeable to the quashing of the
FIR on the basis of the settlement, the present petitions can't be allowed and
are dismissed.
8. Liberty is, however, granted to the parties to file petition for
quashing of FIR if amicable settlement between them is arrived at.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 19, 2016 / tr
