Delhi High Court
Harpreet Kaur & Ors vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors on 12 September, 2017
$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 12.09.2017
+ W.P.(CRL) 2617/2017
HARPREET KAUR & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Sikandar Khan, Advocate with
petitioners in person.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Richa Kapoor, ASC for State with SI
Umesh Yadav, PS Tilak Nagar, Delhi.
Respondent no. 2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
VINOD GOEL, J. (ORAL)
Crl.M.A. 15066/2017 (exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application is disposed of.
W.P.(CRL) 2617/2017
1. Notice. Learned ASC, who appears on an advance copy having been
served, accepts notice.
2. Notice to respondent no. 2 also. She appears in person and accepts
notice. She is duly identified by IO SI Umesh Yadav.
3. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under
Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.PC') for
quashing of the FIR bearing No. 360/2016, registered on 27.03.2016
against them with Police Station Tilak Nagar, West District, Delhi,
under Sections 380/420/448/120B/34 IPC on the complaint of
respondent No.2.
4. As per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner No.1, after selling
his built up property bearing No.WZ-61, Second Floor, Guru Nanak
Nagar, New Delhi-110018 consisting of Khasra No.16/3 measuring
150 square yards on 15.03.2011 by registered sale deed to the
complainant/respondent No.2 and his wife, had illegally trespassed
and occupied the said property in collusion with petitioners No.2 to 4
on 31.08.2013 and took away their household articles. The
respondent No.2 had filed civil suit bearing No.608/2016 before the
court of learned ADJ-5, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
5. On making a reference by the court of ADJ-05 (West), Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi, the parties had appeared before the Delhi Mediation
Centre, Tis Hazari, Delhi. On 07.06.2017, the parties had amicably
resolved and settled all their disputes before the Ld. Mediator.
6. As per the settlement, the petitioners had agreed to handover the
peaceful possession of the said property and pay a total sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondent No.2 in full and final settlement of his
claim. The respondent No.2/complainant present in the court states
that pursuant to the settlement he had received Rs.1,50,000/- by cash
from the petitioners. He submits that he had been delivered actual
physical possession of the said property by the petitioners. He submits
that he had withdrawn his civil suit filed against the petitioners from
the court of ADJ-05 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The respondent
No.2 submits that in view of the settlement, he does not want to
pursue the said FIR. He submits that the said FIR may be quashed.
7. Learned ASC through the IO submits that charge sheet has so far not
been filed.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gold Quest International (P) Ltd. v.
State of T.N., (2014) after analysing the ratio laid down in B.S Joshi
v State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant v CBI
(2008) 9 SCC 677 and Gian Singh v State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC
303, substantiated the nature of cases in which FIR can be quashed
and held as under:-
"8. In view of the principle laid down by this Court in
the aforesaid cases, we are of the view that in the
disputes which are substantially matrimonial in
nature, or the civil property disputes with criminal
facets, if the parties have entered into settlement, and
it has become clear that there are no chances of
conviction, there is no illegality in quashing the
proceedings under Section 482 CrPC read with
Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the same
would not apply where the nature of offence is very
serious like rape, murder, robbery, dacoity, cases under
the Prevention of Corruption Act, cases under the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and
other similar kind of offences in which punishment of life
imprisonment or death can be awarded. After considering
the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of
the view that the learned Single Judge did not commit
any error of law in quashing the FIR after not only the
complainant and the appellant settled their money dispute
but also the other alleged sufferers entered into an
agreement with the appellant, and as such, they too
settled their claims."
9. In the present case since the dispute was of a civil nature arising out
of a transfer of property, there is hardly any chance that the accused
will be convicted in view of the settlement arrived at between the
parties. In view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Gold Quest International's case (supra), no fruitful purpose
would be served in pursuing the said FIR. Hence, to secure the ends
of justice, the FIR bearing No. 360/2016, registered on 27.03.2016
with Police Station Tilak Nagar, West District, Delhi, under Sections
380/420/448/120B/34 IPC and proceedings arising out of the said FIR
are hereby quashed subject to the petitioners depositing a sum of
Rs.20,000/- as costs with the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within a
period of four weeks from today. Copy of receipt be filed within two
weeks thereafter and copy of the same be also supplied to the IO.
10. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
11. DASTI.
(VINOD GOEL)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
"sandeep"
