Delhi High Court
Smt. Mohinder Kaur & Ors. vs Govt. Of Nct, Delhi & Anr. on 22 September, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 22nd September, 2017
+ CRL.M.C. 1900/2015 and CRL.M.A.No.6829/2015
1. SMT. MOHINDER KAUR
2. SMT. INDER JEET KAUR
3. SHRI INDERPAL SINGH SAHNI ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Subhash Jha, with Mr.Idrish
Javed, Advocates.
versus
1. GOVT. OF NCT, DELHI
2. SMT. TEJINDER KAUR SAHNI ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Izhar Ahmad, APP for State with
S.I. Laxman Choudhary, P.S. Greater
Kailash-1.
Mr.K.K. Manan, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.Ankush Narang and Ms. Shweta
Sain, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
JUDGMENT
I.S. MEHTA, J.
1. Instant is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. whereby
the petitioners, i.e. (1) Mohinder Kaur, (2) Inder Jeet Kaur and
(3) Inderpal Singh Sahni, are seeking quashing of the impugned
summoning order dated 26.03.2012 passed by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrat-08 (SE) in CC No. 173/1.
2. The brief facts stated are that the respondent No.2, i.e.
Tejinder Kaur Sahni, had filed a complaint under Section 200
Cr.P.C. in the year 2010 against the petitioners, i.e. (1)
Mohinder Kaur, (2) Inder Jeet Kaur and (3) Inderpal Singh
Sahni, and Mona L. Busby (daughter of the respondent No.2)
for the alleged offences committed under Sections
420/406/328/506/120-B IPC in the Court of Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
3. It was alleged in the compliant that the respondent No.2
was persuaded to come to Delhi by her daughter- Mona L.
Busby as she wanted to purchase a flat in Delhi with intention to
settle in Delhi. It was further alleged that the respondent No.2
was allegedly drugged/intoxicated by the accused and she was
taken to the office of the Registrar, Mehrauli under the
influence of intoxicating substance where she was made to sign
some written and blank documents purported to be the
documents for purchasing a flat in the joint name of her and her
daughter.
4. It was further alleged that the respondent No.2 was also
taken to Hyderabad before the Court of a Civil Judge, there also
under the influence of some intoxicating substance and she was
made to withdraw the cases against her sister and others. Later
on when the respondent No.2 came to know that all the accused
persons had taken the property documents from her and got the
said properties transferred in their names and she was left with
nothing, the respondent No.2 withdrew the SPA and all other
documents, which were got executed by the accused persons
from the respondent No.2 under the influence of intoxication.
5. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 filed a criminal
complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against all the accused
persons for the alleged offence committed under Sections
420/406/328/506/120-B IPC before the Court of ACMM,
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
6. Consequently the learned MM-08 (SE) upon examination
of the complaint, evidence adduced by the respondent
No.2/complainant and the material placed on record was of the
opinion that a prima facie case is made out against the accused
and vide impugned order dated 26.03.2012 summoned the
petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 420/120-B
IPC.
Hence the present petition.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
the petitioner No.2- Inderjeet Kaur is the plaintiff in the Ex.1,
i.e. compromise deed dated 26.02.2010, and in the present
complaint Inderjeet Kaur is impleaded as accused No.3 and the
respondent No.2-Tejinder Kaur Sahni who was the defendant
No.1 is the complainant and rest have not been made as party as
the dispute lies of the property itself. The
settlement/compromise reached between the parties is dated
26.02.2010 before the Court. The SPA was executed on
15.02.2010 at Delhi.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further
submitted that since the respondent No.2/complainant in person
was present before the Court with her counsel, and affixed her
signature on the compromise/settlement deed, to indicate that
the compromise reached between the parties was voluntary and
without any force, pressure or coercion and the dispute between
the parties has been amicably settled and attained the finality
and there is no question to wriggle out the said factum after that
as there would not be any further situation to raise subsequent
hypothetical questions and the dispute on whims and fancies.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further
submitted that after passing of the said decree, the respondent
No.2/complainant goes to the Civil Court at Hyderabad and
tried to reopen the case through her own counsel, the same
counsel who represented her in the settlement/compromise. The
present respondent No.2- Tajender Kaur Sahni made a
complaint before the Bombay Police on 19.03.2010 wherein
also the said allegation which is alleged in the present complaint
about applying drugs etc. is not mentioned. The present
complaint filed before the lower Court at Delhi does not
discloses the same facts as that in the said complaint made to
the Bombay police. All these facts proves on record that the
respondent No.2/complainant wants to wriggle out from the
settlement/compromise reached before the Court which
permission should not be given and present respondent
No.2/complainant has no right to come out of the said
settlement as the same has attained finality.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
while invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. the test to be determined is
whether invocation of the criminal proceedings leads to misuse
of the process of the law. Instant is the petition which leads to
misuse of the process of law, for example the petitioner entered
into the settlement and as per the settlement all the disputes past
and on the date the settlement was executed rest for all coming
future. Since the settlement reached before the Court has
attained finality and the suit was decreed between the parties,
nothing remains to be adjudicated further. Therefore, at this
juncture invocation of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is sine qua non to
rest the dispute between the parties into peace and submits that
the summoning order is bad on this account and relied upon the
following judgments:-
1) Mohd. Shamim And Others vs. Nahid Begum
(Smt) And Another; (2005) 3 SCC 302.
2) Ruchi Aggarwal vs. Amit Kumar Aggarwal And
Others; (2005) 3 SCC 299.
3) Rajesh Khanna & Anr vs. State (Govt. Of NCT Of
Delhi); 174 (2010) DLT 150.
11. He further submits that once the settlement is reached
before the Court the same cannot be put into for raising the
questions, as the same has attained the finality between the
parties and there is no question of back tracking the settlement
which further leads to the disputes and further settlement. If at
all it is to be done there would not be any finality to end the
litigation because of the dispute has to rest and should not be
allowed to raise further question. Reliance is placed on the
judgments in the case Manas Acharya vs. State & Anr; 2012
(4) JCC 2437 and URI Civil Contractor AB vs. Mrs. Pampa
Mukherjee; 1995 (32) DRJ.
12. On the other hand, the learned Senior counsel for the
respondent No.2- Tejinder Kaur Sahni submitted that the
respondent No.2/complainant is a residents of Nasik and the
properties mentioned are at Hyderabad and Bombay; SPA was
executed at Mehrauli, Delhi and Sale Deed was executed at
Hyderabad. The respondent No.2 is the complainant and she
had filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. to which the
Court below has rightly passed the summoning order qua
against the petitioners vide impugned order dated 26.03.2012.
Reliance is placed upon the judgment in case Sonu Gupta vs.
Deepak Gupta & Ors; (2015) 3 SCC 424.
13. The whole question hinges around whether the
respondent No.2- Tejinder Kaur Sahni can be permitted to
wriggle out the compromise/settlement dated 26.02.2010
reached between the parties before the Court below?
The answer obviously is NO:-
14. In the instant case perusal of the material records placed
on record shows that the respondent No.2- Tejinder Kaur Sahni
executed a Special Power of Attorney(SPA) dated 15.02.2010
thereby appointing her daughter Smt. Mona L. Busby as her
Attorney in respect of the land bearing survey No. 28 & 29,
admeasuring 18 acres and 17 guntas and 12 acres 04 guntas
respectively total measuring about 30 acres and 21 guntas
situated at Bongloor Village, Ibrahimpatan Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District, Hyderabad(AP). The SPA dated 15.02.2010
executed by the respondent No.2- Tejinder Kaur Sahni is
reproduced as under:-
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
THIS DEED OF SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY is executed
at Delhi on this 15th Day of February 2010 by Smt. Tejinder
Kaur, widow of Shri Somair Singh Sahni, aged about 75 years
at present residing at C-67 Kailash apartments, Lajpat Rai
Marg, New Delhi, as shall be referred to hereinafter as
Executant.
Executant is Owner of 17%(Undivided) share land being
agricultural land bearing survey no.28 & 29 admeasuring 18
acres and 17 guntas and 12 acres 4 guntas respectively total
measuring about 30 acres 21 guntas situated at Bongloor
Village, Ibrahimpatan Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,
Hyderabad(A.P).
Tejinder Kaur w/o Sh. Sumair Singh,
Mehal Singh Sahany Power of Attorney
C/o C-67 Kailash Appartment
Lajpat Rai Marg New Delhi 110048
WHEREAS the said land was purchased vide sale deed dated
14.8.68 through in the name of M/s Sahani Farms a partnership
firm in which I as & still am holding 17% share and the said
sale deed was registered with the office of the Sub Registrar at
Hyderabad against document No. 680 of 68 of Book No.1
containing seven sheets on 14.8.2968.
WHEREAS Executant, as above said id owner of 17% of the
total land measuring 30 acres 21 guntas as above said and
being old aged women and cannot manage or otherwise sell,
gift or deal with the property.
WHEREAS Smt. Mona L. Busby, d/o Shri Somair Singh Sahni,
presently residing at 667 Kailash apartments, Lajpat Rai Marg,
New Delhi, shall be referred to as Attorney.
WHEREAS the Attorney is real daughter of executant and she
has been taking care and assisting the executant and even
looking after her welfare and otherwise.
AND WHEREAS as above said executant is not in a position to
manage or otherwise to sell, gift or to deal with the land which
is otherwise jointly owned with others as she is holding 17% in
joint with other co owners and as such present attorney is being
executed by the Executant at Delhi while giving all rights and
power to do all acts and deeds as shall be referred to herein
below or otherwise connected and relating to same, if not
specifically so stated to her share in the said share of her
property.
Date
Deed Name Power of Attorney
Land Detail
Tehsil/Sub Tehsil Sub Registrar V Area of Building
Village/City Other Than South District Building Type
Place(Segment) Other Than South District
Property Type Residential
Area of Property 00 0.00 0.00
Money Related detail
Consideration Value 0.00 Rupees Stamp Duty Paid 100.00 Rs.
Value of Registration Fee 3.00 Rupees Posting Fee__Rupees
This document of POWER OF ATTORNEY SPA
Presented by: Sh/Smt S/o,W/o R/o
Smt. Tejinder Kaur Late Sh. Somair Singh Mehal Singh 667
Kailash Apartments, Lajpat Rai Marg, New Delhi
In the office of the Registrar/Sub Registrar, Delhi this
15/02/2010 Day Monday
Signature of Presenter
Execution admitted by the said Shri/Smt Tejinder Kaur
Sd/-
Registrar/Sub Registrar
SUB REGISTRSR V
Delhi/New Delhi
And Shri/Ms/Ms. Mona L. Busby
And Shri/Ms/Ms. Mona L. Busby
Who is/are identified by Shri/Smt/Km. Ashok Arora S/o W/o D/o
TapanRam Arora R/o 82 Pkt A-8 DDA Flats Kalkaji Extn. New
Delhi
And Shri/Smt/Km Mohinder Kaur S/o W/o D/o Amrit Singh
Sabarwal R/o C-67 Kailash Appt. Lajpat Rai Marg New Delhi
Contents of the document explained to the parties who
understand the conditions and admit them as correct.
Certified that the left (or Right as the case may be) hand thumb
impression of the executant has been affixed.
Sd/-
Registrar/Sub Registrar
Sub Registrar V
Date Delhi/New Delhi
My attorney shall be competent to do all acts and deed or
anyone of them as referred to herein below:
1. My attorney shall be competent to represent me before
any authorities or before any court, if necessity arises
and to do all acts and deed as she feels proper.
2. My attorney shall be competent to manage the said
property and its day to day requirements. further she
shall be entitled to approach the Revenue authority or
any other authority for and purpose if so required to be
carried out not only for the purpose of managing the
property but get the mutation or related acts in favour of
any one. She shall be entitled to sell, gift or otherwise
deal with the same in any manner she deems fit and
proper.
3. My attorney shall be competent to enter into agreement to
sell, receive any consideration amount in whole or in part
either in her name or in my name. She shall also be
competent to execute, sign any agreement to sell, sign
and execute the sale deed, present the same before
concerned registrar/registrar of assurance or like other
such authorities and get the said document registered if
so required in law or otherwise she feels proper.
4. She shall be entitled to gift the share of mine in the
property in the name of any person to whom she so
desires. She shall also be competent to gift in her own
favour and to do all acts and deeds for completing the gift
for which she is not only entitled to sign and execute the
gift deed but complete all legal formalities inclusive of
presenting the same before concerned registrar/registrar
of assurance of the jurisdiction authorities, appear before
said authorities, admit execution of the same and get the
same registered.
5. In nut shell she shall be entitled to do all acts and deeds
which are required under law in meeting any of the above
said powers vested in her if not so specifically stated and
related thereto, she shall also be entitled to do so.
6. All acts and deeds done by her shall bind me and I abide
myself to the same.
I HAVE PLACED MY HANDS IN FULL SENSES AND
UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT OF THE SAID
ATTORNEY AT NEW DELHI ON THE DATE MONTH
AND YEAR FIRST ABOVE WRITTEN IN THE PRESENT
OF THE FOLLOWING WITNESSES.
EXECUTANT
WITNESS
1. Ashok Arora s/o Sh. Topan Ram Arora
R/o 82 Pocket A8 DDA Flats
Kalkaji Ext. New Delhi DL-103/035/2756505
2. Mohinder Kaur D/o Amrit Singh Sabarwal
R/o C-67 Kailash Apartments Lajpatrai Marg New
Delhi
Pan No-AHJPK4547Q
Reg. No. Reg. Year Book No
Ist party IInd party Witness
Ist Party IInd party
Ist Party : Smt. Tejinder Kaur
IInd Party : Ms. Mona L. Busby
WITNESS : Ashok Arora, Mohinder Kaur
Certificate (Section 60)
Registration No. 880 in aditional book No. 4 Vol.
No 3505
On Page No. 92 to 95 on this date 15/02/2010 day
Monday and left thumb impression have/has been
taken in my presence.
Date 15/02/2010 Sd/-
Sub Registrar
Sub Registrar V
New Delhi, Delhi.
15. Thereafter, a settlement/compromise before the IIIrd
Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District was executed on
26.02.2010 wherein the compromise memo was filed on behalf
of Smt. Inderjeet Kaur-plaintiff (petitioner No.2 herein) through
her GPA holder Inderpaul Singh-(petitioner No.3 herein) and
Smt. Tejinder Kaur- defendant (respondent No.2 herein), Smt.
Ajit Kaur-defendant and Smt. Pushpinder Kaur-defendant
whereby the parties agreed to settle the matter amicably among
themselves and thereby decided to reduce the terms and
condition of the compromise into writing and close the suit by
recording the same. The settlement/compromise reached
between the parties before the Court of learned IIIrd Senior
Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District is reproduced as under:-
IN THE OFFICE OF THE IIIrd CIVIL JUDGE, RANGA
REDDY DISTRICT
O.S.No: 860 of 2002
Between:
Smt. Inderjeet Kaur w/o Harpaul Singh, aged 63 years,
through her GPA holder Inderpaul Singh, s/o Harpaul
Singh, aged 40 years, r/o Nasik, Maharastra state.
...Plaintiff
and
1. Smt. Tejinder Kaur s/o Somair Singh, aged 73 years,
r/o Door No.534, 17th road Khar, Mumbai-52
2. Smt. Ajit Kaur w/o Birender Singh, aged 73 years, r/o
Door No. 537, 17th Road Khar, Mumbai-52.
3. Smt. Pushpinder Kaur w/o Autar Singh, aged 75 years,
r/o Plaza Cinema, Connoght, New Delhi.
(Defendant No.3 is not necessary party to this
compromise memo as she has already sold her share of
property to third parties)
...Defendants
COMPROMISE MEMO FILED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF
AND DEFENDENTS NOs, 1 AND 2
In the above mentioned case, the plaintiff and the
defendants Nos. 1 and 2 submit the following compromise:
1. That the plaintiff herein filed a suit for partition claiming
equal share along with the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in the lands
bearing S.No 28 and 29 admeasuring 18 acres 17 guntas and
12 acres 4 guntas respectively of village Bonguloor, Mandal:
Ibrahimpatan; Dist: Ranga Reddy. In the said suit the
defendants took a stand that the plaintiff and the defendants
No.2 and 2 are not equal sharers, but they are equal sharers
only in 50% of the foresaid land and the rest of 50% belonges to
the defendant No.3.
2. That the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the
sisters and the defendant Nos.3 id their aunt and thus all the
parties hereto are related to each other.
3. That the elders and well wishers of all the parties hereto have
advised them to get settle the matter amicably, keeping in view
the relationship existing among them, upon which all the parties
hereto have agreed to settle the matter amicably among
themselves and thereby decided to reduce the terms and
conditions of the compromise into writing and close the suit by
recording the same.
4. That in pursuance the mutual settlement, all the parties
hereto have agreed to partition the suit lands in the following
ratio,
a) Plaintiff: (Mrs. Inderjeet Kaur Sahani) shall have 17%
of the suit land which comes to 5 acres and 10 guntas;
b) The defendant No.1 (Mrs. Tejinder Kaur Sahani) shall
have 17% of the suit land which comes to 5 acres and 10
guntas;
c) The defendant No.2 (Mrs. Ajit Kaur Sahani) shall have
16% of the land which comes to 4 acres and 31 guntas;
d) The defendant No.3 (Mrs. Pushpinder Kaur) shall have
50% of the land which comes to 15 acres and 10 guntas;
5. That the parties hereto got allotted their respective areas as
shown in the site plan enclosed to this compromise. The land of
the plaintiff is shown red colour, the land of the defendant No.1
is shown in blue colour, the land of the defendant No.2 is shown
in green colour and the land of the defendant No.3 is shown in
yellow colour.
6. That in pursuance of the said division of the lands in
accordance with their shares, the parties have been put in
separate possession and enjoyment over their respective shares
and hereafter they are entitled to maintain their respective
possession and enjoyment over their shares, without any sort of
interference or interruption, whatsoever.
7. That it has been mutually agreed that the parties can
approach the concerned revenue authorities seeking mutation of
their names in respect of the shares allotted to them in the
aforesaid survey numbers.
8. That it has been mutually agreed by all the parties and they
have undertaken that none of the parties shall put forth any sort
of claims, rights, whatsoever, over the shares of other parties
and cause any sort of interference, interruption, whatsoever, in
the possession and enjoyment of other parties over their
respective allotted shares.
9. That it has been mutually agreed that in pursuance of this
compromise, the names of the plaintiff and the defendant No.2
which were deleted, shall be restored back in revenue records
and also in patta pass books, title deeds, if any, and none of the
parties shall put forth any hurdles for such restoration and for
implementation of this compromise in revenue records.
10. That it has been mutually agreed that each party shall bear
their own costs.
Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased
to record the compromise memo and decree the plaintiff's suit,
without costs, in terms of this compromise memo.
Date: 26/2/2010 sd/-
Plaintiff
sd/-
Counsel for plaintiff
sd/-
Defendant No.1
sd/-
Defendant No.2
sd/-
Counsel for defendant 1
16. Subsequently, a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was
filed by the respondent No.2- Tejinder Kaur Sahni against all
the accused persons/petitioners, i.e. (1) Mohinder Kaur, (2)
Inder Jeet Kaur and (3) Inderpal Singh Sahni, and Mona L.
Busby (daughter of the respondent No.2) on 27.03.2010 for the
alleged offences committed under Sections
420/406/328/506/120-B IPC before the Court of ACMM,
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. Consequently, the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate vide impugned order dated 26.03.2012
summoned all the accused persons (including the petitioners
herein) for the offence punishable under Sections 420/120B
IPC.
17. The respondent No.2- Tejinder Kaur Sahni had also
executed a Special Power of Attorney(SPA) dated 11.02.2010
thereby nominated/appointed/empowered and constituted her
daughter Ms. Mona L. Busby as her lawful legal Special
Attorney to do the acts, deed and things for and on her behalf
and in her name, in respect of 15% share in all the piece and
parcel of land along with building bearing Plot No. 534 of
suburban scheme No.VII, admeasuring 762 sq. yds. equivalent
to 637.13 sq. meters bearing city survey No. E-81 at 17th Road
Khan in village Danda Bombay. The SPA dated 11.02.2010
executed by the respondent No.2 is reproduced as under:-
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
Be it known to all to whom it may concern that I, Tejinder Kaur
Sahni W/o Late Sh. Somair Singh Sahni presently residing at C-
67, Kailash Apartments, Lajpatrai Marg, New Delhi, do hereby
nominate, appoint empower and constitute my daughter Ms.
Mona L. Busby D/o Late Sh. Somair Singh Sahni R/o C-67
Kailash Apartments, Lajpatrai Marg, New Delhi, as my lawful
legal Special Attorney and authorize her to do the following
acts, deed and things for and on my behalf and in her name, in
respect of 15% share in all the piece and parcel of land along
with building bearing Plot No. 534 of suburban Schemw no.
VII, admeasuring 762 sq. yds. Equivalent to 637.13 sq. mtrs
bearing city survey No. E-81 at 17th Road Khan in Village
Danda Bombay, (hereinafter referred to as the said propety):-
Whereas the said land alongwith building came into the share
of Late Sh.Somair Singh Sahni HUF vide Partition Deed on
1972. Subsequently the property was devided among the
members of the HUF and I, the Ececutant entitle to 14% share.
Subsequently Sh.Somair Singh my husband was expired who
was having 5% share in the above property. After his death I
am entitle to 1/5th of his share i.e 1%. Hence my share as on
date is 14% + 1% i.e 15%/
Whereas Smt.Mona L.Busby, d/o Shri Somair Singh Sahni,
presently residing at 667, Kailash Apartments, Lajpat Rai
Marg, New Delhi, shall referred to as Attorney.
Whereas the Attorney is real daughter of executant and she has
been taking care and assisting the executant and even looking
after her welfare and otherwise.
And whereas as the above said executant is not in a position to
manage of otherwise to sell, gift or to deal with the land which
is otherwise jointly owned with others as she is holding 15% in
joint with other co owners and as such present attorney is being
executed by the Executant at Delhi while giving all rights and
powers to do all acts and deeds as shall be referred to herein
below or otherwise connected and relating to same if not
specifically so stated to her share on the said share of her
property.
My attorney shall be competent to do all acts and deeds or
amyone of them as referred to herein below:
Date
Deed Related Detailed
Deed Name Power of Attorney SPA
Land Detail
Tehsil/Sub Tehsil SUb Registrar V Area of Building
Village/City Other Than South District Building Type
Place (Segment) Other Than South District
Property Type Residential
Area of Property 00 0.00 0.00
Money Related detail
Consideration Value 0.00 Rupees Stamp Duty Paid 100.00 Rs.
Value of Registration Fee 3.00 Rupees Posting Fee 1.00 Rupee
This document of POWER OF ATTORNEY SPA
Presented by: Sh/Smt. S/o, W/o R/o
Smt. Tejinder Kaur Late Sh. Somair Singh Mehal Singh
667 Kailash Apartments, Lajpatrai Marg, New Delhi
In the office of the Registrar/Sub Registrar, Delhi this
15/02/2010 Day Monday
Signature of Presenter Execution admitted by the said Shri/Smt
Tejinder Kaur
Sd/-
Registrar/Sub Registrar
Sub Registrar V
Delhi/New Delhi
And Shri/Ms/Ms. Mona L. Busby
Who is/are identified by Shri/Smt/Km. Ashok Arora S/o W/o D/o
Tapan Ram Arora R/o 82 Pkt A-8 DDA Flats Kalkaji Extn. New
Delhi
And Shri/Smt/Km Mohinder Kaur S/o W/o d/o Amrit Singh
Sabarwal R/o C-67 Kailash Appt. Lajpat Rai Marg New Delhi
Contents of the documents explained to the parties who
understand the conditions and admit them as correct.
Certified that the left (or Rightas the case may be) hand thumb
impression of the executants has been affixed.
Sd/-
Registrar/Sub Registrar
Sub Registrar V
Date Delhi/New Delhi
1. My attorney shall be competent to represent me before
any authorities or before any court, if necessity arises
and to do all acts and deeds as she feels proper.
2. My attorney shall be competent to manage the said
property and it day to day requirements. Further she
shall be entitled to approach the Revenue authorities or
any other authorities for and propose if so, required to be
carried out not only for the purpose of managing the
property but get the mutation or related acts in favour of
any one. She shall be entitled to sell, gift or otherwise
deal with the same in any manner she deems fit and
proper.
3. My attorney shall be competent to enter into agreement to
sell, receive any consideration amount in whole or on
part either in her name or in my name. She shall also be
competent to execute, sign any agreement to sell, sign
and execute the sale deed present the same before
concerned registrar/registrar to assurance or like other
such authorities and get the said document registered if
so required in law or otherwise she feel proper.
4. She shall be entitled to gift the share of mine in the
property in the name of any person to whom she so
desires. She shall also be competent to gift in her own
favour and to do all acts and deeds for completing the
gifts for which she is not only entitled to sign, and execute
the gift deed but complete all legal formalities inclusive
of presenting the same before concerned
registrar/registrar of assurances of the jurisdictional
authorities appear before said authorities, admit
execution of the same and get the same registered.
5. In nut shell she shall be entitled to do all acts and deeds
which are required under law in meeting any of the above
said powers vested in her if not so specifically stated and
related thereto, she shall also be entitled to do so.
6. All acts and deed done by her shall bind me and I abide
myself to the same.
I HAVE PLACED MY HANDS IN FULL SENSES AND
UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT OF THE SAID
ATTORNEY AT NEW DELHI ON THE DATE MONTH
AND YEAR FIRST ABOVE WRITTEN IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING WITNESSES:
EXECUTANT
WITNESS
1. Ashok Arora s/o Sh. Topan Ram Arora
R/o 82 Pocket A8 DDA Flats
Kalkaji Ext. New Delhi DL-103/035/2756505
2. Mohinder Kaur D/o Amrit Singh Sabarwal
R/o C-67 Kailash Apartments Lajpatrai Marg New
Delhi
Pan No-AHJPK4547Q
Reg. No. Reg. Year Book No
Ist party IInd party Witness
Ist Party IInd party
Ist Party : Smt. Tejinder Kaur
IInd Party : Ms. Mona L. Busby
WITNESS : Ashok Arora, Mohinder Kaur
Certificate (Section 60)
Registration No. 881 in aditional book No. 4 Vol.
No 3505
On Page No. 96 to 99 on this date 15/02/2010 day
Monday and left thumb impression have/has been
taken in my presence.
Date 15/02/2010 Sd/-
Sub Registrar
Sub Registrar V
New Delhi, Delhi.
18. In the instant case the SPA was executed on 15.02.2010
at Delhi and the settlement/compromise reached between the
parties is dated 26.02.2010 before the Court/IIIrd Senior Civil
Judge, Ranga Reddy District. It is evident from the documents
placed on record that the respondent No.2- Tejinder Kaur Sahni
was present before the aforesaid Court with her counsel, and
affixed her signature on the compromise/settlement deed, which
indicates that the compromise/settlement dated 26.02.2010
reached between the parties was voluntary and without any
force, pressure or coercion and the dispute between the parties
has been settled and attained finality. Therefore, there is no
question to wriggle out the said factum after that, as there would
not be any further situation to raise subsequent hypothetical
question and the dispute on whims and fancies.
19. The Apex Court in case Mohd. Shamim And Others vs.
Nahid Begum (Smt) And Another; (2005) 3 SCC 302 has made
the following observation:-
"12. In view of the feet that the settlement was arrived at
the intervention of a judicial officer of the rank of the
Additional Sessions Judge, we are of the opinion, the
contention of the First Respondent herein to the effect
that she was not aware of the contents thereof and the
said agreement as also the affidavit which were got
signed by her by misrepresentation of facts must be
rejected. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we
have no doubt in our mind that the denial of execution of
the said deed of settlement is an afterthought on the part
of the Respondent No. 1 herein."
(emphasis supplied)
Admittedly, the settlement/compromise reached between the
parties before the learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy
District was on 26.02.2010 and the plea taken by the respondent
No.2 whereby alleging fraud/intoxication qua against the
petitioners and denial of execution of the said
settlement/compromise is an afterthought process on the part of
the respondent No.2 as the complaint was filed on 27.03.2010
subsequent to the settlement/compromise dated 26.02.2010 just
to wriggle out the effects of the settlement/compromise dated
26.02.2010 for the ulterior and unseen motive on the part of the
respondent No.2.
20. This Court in the case URI Civil Contractor AB vs. Mrs.
Pampa Mukherjee; 1995 (32) DRJ while attributing great
sanctity to compromise has made the following observation:-
"(20) One of the first and foremost duty of the Court is to
see that there is an end to the litigation. A great sanctity
is attached as such to a compromise because it puts an
end to litigation once and for all. A compromise decree is
a decree which is to the satisfaction of both the parties.
No party is aggrieved and as such, there is no question of
further litigation. It is unlike an order of the Court which
is always in favor of one party and against the other
party and as such, it is appealed against by the party
whosoever feels aggrieved. It was perhaps with the said
end in view that the legislators in their wisdom enacted
Order Xxiii Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure which
reads as under:-
"NO suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground
that the compromise on which the decree is based was
not lawful.""
(emphasis supplied)
21. The perusal of the records reveals that the compromise
Ex-I dated 26.02.2010 bears the signature of the respondent
No.2- Tejinder Kaur Sahni and that of her counsel and that of
Indrapaul Singh for and on behalf of the petitioner No.2-
Inderjeet Kaur. It is also supported by the affidavits of both the
parties. Furthermore, the learned lower court/IIIrd Senior Civil
Judge, Ranga Reddy District recorded the statement of the
respondent No.2- Tejinder Kaur Sahni and that of her counsel.
Similarly, the learned lower court/IIIrd Senior Civil Judge,
Ranga Reddy District also recorded the statement of Mr.
Indrapaul Singh for and on behalf of the petitioner No.3-
Inderjeet Kaur and that of their counsel. Therefore, in these
circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 that she was defrauded by the petitioners loses
its significance. The respondent No.2- Tejinder Kaur Sahni
entered into the compromise with her open eyes and was not
alone while entering into the said compromise but was assisted
at the relevant time by her counsel as well.
22. Admittedly, the settlement/compromise deed Ex-I dated
26.02.2010 bears not only the signature of the parties but of
their counsels also. Thus, there is a presumption that the
respondent No.2- Tejinder Kaur Sahni must have gone through
the compromise deed and each and every term of the same must
have been known to her. Once the compromise reached between
the parties has attained finality it cannot be agitated and the
subsequent filing of a complaint case is only an afterthought
which indicates that the criminal complaint from which this
petition arises was filed by the respondent No.2 to harass the
petitioners.
23. The Apex Court in the case State of Haryana vs. Bhajan
Lal; AIR 1992 SC 604 has discussed in detail the ambit and
scope of High Courts power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and
summarised the position by mentioning as many as seven
principles and the principle No. 7 is relevant and would be
applicable in the instant case. The present case is squarely
covered by the aforesaid principle which is reproduced as
under:-
" 105. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of
the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series
of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary
power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under
Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we give the following categories of
cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it
may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list
of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
1. Where the allegations made in the First Information
Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge."
(emphasis supplied)
24. In view of the above said subsequent events and the
conduct of the respondent No.2-Tejinder Kaur Sahni, it would
be an abuse of the process of the Court if the criminal
proceedings from which the present petition arises is allowed to
continue.
25. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion while allowing
the present petition, the impugned summoning order dated
26.03.2012 and all the proceedings arising from CC No. 173/1
P.S- G.K.-1 are quashed and the complaint filed by the
respondent No.2-Tejinder Kaur Sahni is dismissed. It is ordered
accordingly. The present petition is disposed of.
26. One copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned
Court(s). No order as to costs.
27. All the pending applications (if any) are also disposed of.
I.S.MEHTA, J
SEPTEMBER 22, 2017/sr
