Delhi High Court
Deepak Kuthiala & Ors. vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. on 4 May, 2017
$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 4th May, 2017
+ W.P. (CRL.) 1161/2017
DEEPAK KUTHIALA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate
Mr. Manjit Singh, Senior Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Rathee, Adv. &
Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, Advocate
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Kamna Vohra, ASC for the State.
Mr. Subodh K. Pathak, Adv.,
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. for R-2 with
respondent no.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The First Information Report (FIR) No.136/2016 was registered
at Police Station Barakhamba Road, New Delhi on 20.08.2016
pursuant to directions of the court of Metropolitan Magistrate by order
dated 16.08.2016 in criminal complaint case no.4751/1 of 2013 under
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for
investigation into the offences under Section 420 read with Section 34
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the said criminal complaint having
been instituted before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate by the
second respondent. It appears that the second respondent had also
earlier instituted a civil suit with regard to similar background facts, it
being CS(OS) No.168/2014 against the parties including the
petitioners herein as defendants. The dispute concerns property
described as bearing no.40, Babar Road, Bengali Market, New Delhi-
110001 ("the property").
2. The civil suit resulted in an amicable settlement formalized by
the parties through memorandum of understanding (MOU) executed
on 03.04.2017, to which the petitioners and the second respondent are
signatory. The civil suit, in the wake of the said settlement was
withdrawn by the second respondent by moving application (IA
No.4743/2017) under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC) which was granted by order dated 20.04.2017.
3. In the wake of the abovesaid resolution, the petitioners have
approached this court through the petition at hand invoking Article
226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying
for the criminal case and the proceedings arising out of the FIR
No.136/2016 of Police Station Barakhamba Road to be quashed. The
second respondent has joined in the prayer by submitting the affidavit
which was filed with the petition.
4. By order dated 21.04.2017, notices were issued. The State, in
response, has filed status report with regard to the facts and
circumstances as have been found brought out through the
investigation carried out thus far into the above mentioned FIR.
5. The second respondent has also filed his affidavit sworn on
01.05.2017 stating no objection to the prayer made in the petition
being granted.
6. When the matter was heard earlier in the morning, the second
respondent was present in person with his daughter Ms. Sarita Bhateja.
The learned counsel on both sides narrated the background history of
the dispute between the parties to the effect that the property was
originally purchased in auction by Shri Kewal Krishan Kuthiala, late
father of the petitioners during his lifetime, he having died on
14.07.2006. During investigation, it has been brought out that right,
title and interest of Late Shri Kewal Krishan Kuthiala in the property
devolved on the first petitioner Deepak Kuthiala in terms of a Will that
had been left behind by the said Late Shri Kewal Krishan Kuthiala.
7. It appears that the second respondent as the first informant
(brother of Late Shri Kewal Krishan Kuthiala) of the FIR, was also
claiming interest in the property and having found it (the property) to
be in the hands of a third party, lodged the FIR, inter alia, stating that
the offence of cheating had been committed on the basis of forged and
fabricated documents by the petitioners. It is such allegations which
were taken up by the police for investigation through the above
mentioned FIR.
8. By his affidavits, particularly the fresh affidavit sworn today
which has been filed during the course of the day, the second
respondent explains that the allegations of forgery and fabrication of
the title deeds was made by him on account of some misunderstanding
which, it is clear, he does not want to pursue further. The fact that the
dispute has been amicably resolved through the MOU dated
03.04.2017, a copy whereof has been submitted by the affidavit sworn
today by the second respondent, and that there is no case of any
documents having been forged, has been confirmed by Ms. Sarita
Bhateja, the daughter of the second respondent, she also
accompanying him, by her own affidavit which has also been now
submitted. It may also be added that in the said affidavit Ms. Sarita
Bhateja has clarified that she is the only surviving person, who stands
in line of succession vis-à-vis the second respondent. It was orally
explained by her that her mother had earlier passed away.
9. The learned standing counsel for the State confirms that on the
basis of investigation of the case carried out thus far no offence other
than that of cheating is found made out, this particularly against the
backdrop of the fact that the second respondent has now given up the
allegations of forgery or fabrication of documents with the explanation
that the same were leveled in the FIR on some misunderstanding.
10. The offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable in terms of
Section 320 CR.P.C. But then, the stage for such compounding would
come in the ordinary course of criminal justice process after the
investigation has been concluded and a report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. has been filed before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate.
The case relates to FIR which was registered only on 20.08.2016. The
investigating police agency would be taking its own time in carrying
out the investigation procedure.
11. Since the parties have now resolved the dispute amicably, a case
which would eventually result in compounding on the basis of such
amicable resolution, should not be allowed to waste the public
resources by insisting on the police to complete the process and then
come up with its report so that the parties may compound.
12. Having regard to the principles governing the power of this
court in terms of Section 482 Cr.P.C. as explained, inter alia, in Gian
Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2012 (10) SCC 303, the ends of justice
demand that the prayer in the present petition be granted.
13. Thus, the petition is allowed. The proceedings arising out of
FIR No.136/2016, under Section 420/34 IPC of Police Station
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi District, are hereby quashed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
MAY 04, 2017
vk
