Delhi High Court
Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs The State & Anr on 27 September, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision:27thSeptember, 2017
+ 1. CRL.M.C. 2297/2017
PRAMOD KUMAR BAJAJ ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
THE STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Hirein Sharma, APP for State
+ 2. CRL.M.C. 2298/2017 & CRL.M.A.15628-15629/2017
PRAMOD KUMAR BAJAJ & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner No.1 in person.
versus
THE STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Hirein Sharma, APP for State
Inspector Seema Yadav, PS-Prashant
Vihar
+ 3. CRL.M.C. 5371/2014
RAKHEE GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Hirein Sharma, APP for State
+ 4. CRL.M.C. 5372/2014
RAKHEE GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Hirein Sharma, APP for State
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
4663/2013 & 4664/2013 Page 1 of 30
+ 5. CRL.M.C. 137/2013
B.C.GUPTA & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms.Rakhee Gupta, daughter of the
petitioner No.1 in person.
versus
PRAMOD BAJAJ & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Hirein Sharma, APP for State
+ 6. CRL.M.C. 2948/2013 & CRL.M.A.17220/2013
OPTIMYSTIX ENTERTAINMENT
INDIA P. LTD. & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Sudhir Nandraj Jog, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Mithilesh Kumar Pandey, Advs.
versus
PRAMOD BAJAJ & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Hirein Sharma, APP for State
+ 7. CRL.M.C. 1298/2013 & CRL.M.A.4032/2013, 10235/2017
RAKHEE GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.R.N.Vats, Adv. with Ms.Madhu
Saini, Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Anand and
Mr.Sumit Garg, Advs.
Petitioner in person.
versus
PRAMOD BAJAJ & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Hirein Sharma, APP for State
+ 8. CRL.M.C. 3577/2013 & CRL.M.A.13046/2013 & 16743/2013
N S BUNDELA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ravin Rao, Adv. with
Mr.R.N.Vats, Ms.Madhu Saini,
Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Anand and
Mr.Sumit Garg, Advs.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Hirein Sharma, APP for State
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
4663/2013 & 4664/2013 Page 2 of 30
+ 9. CRL.M.C. 4660/2013 & CRL.M.A.16742-16743/2013
RISHI PAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ravin Rao, Adv. with
Mr.R.N.Vats, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Hirein Sharma, APP for State
+ 10. CRL.M.C. 4663/2013 & CRL.M.A.16752-16753/2013
KRISHAN PAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ravin Rao, Adv. with
Mr.R.N.Vats, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Hirein Sharma, APP for State
+ 11. CRL.M.C. 4664/2013 & CRL.M.A.16755-16756/2013
SUDESH DAHIYA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ravin Rao, Adv. with
Mr.R.N.Vats, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Hirein Sharma, APP for State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
I.S. MEHTA, J.
1. Instant petitions are arising out of the matrimonial discord between
Shri Pramod Kumar Bajaj and Ms.Rakhee Gupta.
2. The disputes and differences between the parties resulted into filing of
many cases/ proceedings pending in Courts including the instant petitions,
details of the same are given below:-
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
a. CRL.M.C. 2297/2017 is filed by Shri Pramod Kumar Bajaj
seeking quashing of order dated 24.02.2014 passed in CC
No.31/1/13 by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini
Courts Delhi whereby the application under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C filed by Ms.Rakhee Gupta was allowed and
subsequently FIR No.2017/2014 was registered at Police
Station-Prashant Vihar.
b. CRL.M.C. 2298/2017 is filed by Shri Pramod Kumar Bajaj
for quashing of FIR No.33/2009, under Sections
406/420/494/498-A/506/323/120-B IPC, registered at Police
Station-Bharat Nagar.
c. CRL.M.C. 5371/2014&CRL.M.C. 5372/2014 are filed by
Ms.Rakhee Gupta for setting aside the order dated
10.07.2014 passed by learned Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-
111, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Criminal Revision No.29/2014
whereby Shri Pramod Kumar Bajaj was exempted from his
personal appearance in the matter pending before the Trial
Court subject to the certain conditions.
d. CRL.M.C. 137/2013 is filed by Sh.B.C.Gupta (father of
Ms.Rakhee Gupta) for quashing the complaint case
No.13/1/2012 pending the in the court of Metropolitan
Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
e. CRL.M.C. 2948/2013 is filed by M/s.Optimystix
Entertainment India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. seeking quashing of
complaint case No.13/1/2012 pending in the court of
Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi and also for
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
quashing of order dated 19.02.2011 passed by ACJM,
Lucknow in complaint No.331/2011 whereby the petitioners
are summoned for their trial as accused for the offence
punishable under Section 500 IPC.
f. CRL.M.C. 1298/20132013 is filed by Ms.Rakhee Gupta for
quashing the complaint case No.1/1/2013 pending in the
court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
g. CRL.M.C. 3577/2013 is filed by Mr.N.S.Bundela, I.P.S
seeking quashing of impugned order dated 19.02.2011
passed by ACJM, Lucknow in complaint No.331/2011 and
the subsequent proceedings in the said case bearing
No.13/1/2012 pending in the court of Metropolitan
Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
h. CRL.M.C. 4660/2013 is filed by Mr.Rishi Pal seeking
quashing of impugned order dated 21.10.2010 passed by the
court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V,
Lucknow in Complaint Case No.3370/2010 and the
subsequent proceedings in the new Complaint Case
No.01/01/2013 pending in the court of Metropolitan
Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
i. CRL.M.C. 4663/2013 is filed by Mr.Krishan Pal seeking
quashing of impugned order dated 21.10.2010 passed by the
court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V,
Lucknow in Complaint Case No.3370/2010 and the
subsequent proceedings in the new Complaint Case
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
No.01/01/2013 pending in the court of Metropolitan
Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
j. CRL.M.C. 4664/2013 is filed by Ms.Sudesh Dahiya Pal
seeking quashing of impugned order dated 21.10.2010
passed by the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-V, Lucknow in Complaint Case No.3370/2010
and the subsequent proceedings in the new Complaint Case
No.01/01/2013 pending in the court of Metropolitan
Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
3. Briefly stating, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present
petitions are that on the complaint of Ms.Rakhee Gupta, FIR No.33/2009,
under Sections 406/420/494/498-A/506/323/120-B IPC was registered at
Police Station-Bharat Nagar. It is alleged in the FIR that Ms.Rakhee Gupta
was approached by Shri Pramod Kumar Bajaj through his profile on an
internet matrimonial website and to obtain her consent, Shri Pramod Kumar
Bajaj misrepresented his date of birth and marital status. It is further alleged
that Shri Pramod Kumar Bajaj kept on calling Ms.Rakhee Gupta on her
mobile and through e-mail and succeeded in getting her consent for marriage
and after negotiations, Shri Pramod Kumar Bajaj got married with
Ms.Rakhee Gupta on 28.12.2008 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies
at Delhi wherein heavy gifts and cash were given to the bridegroom by the
family and relatives of the bride. It is also alleged in the FIR that after the
marriage, Ms.Rakhee Gupta was being harassed by Shri Pramod Kumar
Bajaj and his family members. It is further alleged that Shri Pramod Kumar
Bajaj had more wives and children and when Ms.Rakhee Gupta raised the
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
issue about the same, she was manhandled and was thrown out from the
house after which she returned to her parents house at Delhi and she
collected more information about the antecedents of Shri Pramod Kumar
Bajaj and it came to her knowledge that Shri Pramod Kumar Bajaj had
ruined the lives of number of innocent girls by marrying them and making
them to leave his house or by throwing them out of this house. After
registration of the FIR, investigation was conducted and Shri Pramod Kumar
Bajaj was arrested on 16.12.2009 and then was released on bail by the orders
of learned District Judge, Rohini on 04.01.2010.
4. When Shri Pramod Kumar Bajaj was arrested on 16.12.2009, a press
release was issued on 18.12.2009 by DCP/North-West District Sh.
N.S.Bundela in an official capacity in connection with case FIR No.33/2009,
PS-Bharat Nagar, Delhi. The said press release was based on facts which
came to light during investigation and as per brief facts of the allegations
made by the complainant Ms.Rakhee Gupta of case FIR No.33/2009, PS-
Bharat Nagar, Delhi. The said press release was issued as a preventive
measure in public interest as the matrimonial website Jeevansathi.com is a
public matrimonial website where the accused Shri Pramod Kumar Bajaj had
misrepresented his marital status and age that could misguide other innocent
girls also. The press release was issued as per Standing Order-7/85 dated
27.03.1985, Commissioner of Police, Head Quarter and Circular No.5669-
5869/C&T-AC-I, dated Delhi, 27.03.1985 as a preventive action.
5. The disputes and differences between the parties resulted into filing of
several cases/proceedings by them against each other and also their family
members which are pending in different Courts/ forums.
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
6. Ms.Rakhee Gupta filed MAT.APP.(F.C.) 148/2014 before the
Division Bench of this Court assailing the order dated 25th April, 2013
passed by the Family Court-II in HMA No.125/2010 rejecting her
application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In MAT.APP.(F.C.)
148/2014 the directions given to the parties vide order dated 19.01.2016 is
reproduced as under:
"10. However, it is an admitted position that the
appellant is without any source of livelihood.
Therefore, without prejudice to the respective rights
and contentions of both the parties, purely as an
interim measure, the respondent is directed to make a
payment of Rs.20,000/- per month to the appellant as
maintenance with effect from 01.01.2016. The said
amount shall be paid by the respondent to the
appellant on or before 7th of each English calendar
month. In addition, the respondent shall pay a sum of
Rs.50,000/- to the appellant towards litigation
expenses. The payment of aforesaid amounts shall be
forthwith transmitted by the respondent by RTGS mode
of transfer in the S/B Account of the appellant bearing
Account No.0387101033945, IFSC Code:
CNRB0000387, MICR Code: 110015035 with Canara
Bank, Ashok Vihar Branch, Delhi. 11.
11. The amounts awarded towards maintenance
for January, 2016 and the litigation expenses shall be
paid by the respondent to the appellant within one
week from today. In case, the amount, as directed
above, is not tendered by the respondent to the
appellant within the stipulated time period, a direction
is issued to the Central Board of Direct Taxes to
deduct the said amount from the salary of the
respondent. At this stage, when we were so directing,
the respondent submits that he shall voluntarily make
payment to the appellant, as directed by this Court,
inasmuch as he would face grave humiliation if this
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
order is communicated to his employer. We accept the
statement. The direction to the Central Board of Direct
Taxes shall be kept in abeyance to be revived if the
respondent does not abide with his statement."
7. Vide order dated 28.04.2016 passed in MAT.APP.(F.C.) 148/2014,
39/2016 & 34/2016, with the consent of both the parties, it was directed that
the parties shall appear before Ms.Veena Ralli and Mr.Rajiv Aggarwal,
Advocates and Mediators at SAMADHAN - the Delhi High Court
Mediation and Conciliation Centre to explore the possibility of settlement.
The matter was settled between the parties before the Delhi High Court
Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 18.06.2016. The original Settlement
Agreement dated 18th June, 2016 between the parties is placed in MAT.
APP.(F.C.) 39/2016. The appellant Ms.Rakhee Gupta was shown the original
Settlement Agreement and she identified her signatures at Points X-1 to X-
11 while the respondent Shri Pramod Kumar Bajaj identified his signatures
at Points Y-1 to Y-11 on each page of the Settlement Agreement. The
Settlement Agreement was exhibited as (Exh. C-1). Both the parties have
given undertakings in the Settlement Agreement and have also given
undertakings to this Court that they shall strictly abide by all the terms and
conditions of the settlement agreement (Exh. C-1). The settlement agreement
(Exh. C-1) is reproduced as under:-
"SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT is entered into on 18.08.2016
BETWEEN
Smt. Rakhee Gupta D/o Shri B.C. Gupta R/o House No. A-315, SFS
Flats, Ashok Vihar Phase IV, New Delhi-110052 (hereinafter referred
to as the First Party) (which expression shall mean to include the
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
party, her legal heirs, successors, legal representatives,
administrators, executors, nominees(s) and assignees as well).
AND
Capt. Pramod Kumar Bajaj S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal Bajaj, R/o 222,
M.G. Marg, P.S.Cantt, Lucknow, U.P./resident of 3/237 Vinay Khand
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Second Party)
(which expression shall mean to include the party, her legal heirs,
successors, legal representatives, administrators, executors,
nominee(s) and assignees as well).
The parties are individually referred to as "Party" and collectively as
"Parties".
WHEREAS the First and the Second parties got married on
28.12.2008 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Shalimar
Bagh, Delh. No child is born form the wedlock of the parties. Due to
disputes and differences, the parties could not live together and are
now living separately since 24.01.2009.
AND WHEREAS disputes and differences between the parties resulted
into filing of the many cases/ proceedings pending in Courts/ forums
by them against each other and also their family members, details
whereof are given hereinbelow:-
i. Case No. 511/2014 titled as RAkhee Gupta Vs. Pramod, pending
before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohini.
ii. Case No. 512/2014 title as Pramod Bajaj Vs. Rakhee Pramod Bajaj,
pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohini.
iii. Case No. 159/2 of 2010 titled as State Vs. Pramod Bajaj, pending
before this Court of Ms. Sushil Bala Dagar, MM (Women Court),
Rohini.
iv. Case No.3/2016 titled as State Vs. Pramod Bajaj & Ors., pending
before the Court of Shri. VK Rai, ASJ, Rohini.
v. Case No.20/1/2014 titled as Pramod Bajaj Vs. RAkhee Gupta, pending
before the Court of ACMM/MM, Rohini.
vi. Case entitled as Pramod Bajaj Vs. M/s. Optimystix Ent. (P) Ltd. &
Ors., pending before the Court of ACMM/MM, Rohini.
vii. Case No.31/1/2013 titled as Rakhee Gupta Vs. Pramod Bajaj, pending
before the Court of ACMM/MM, Rohini
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
viii. Case No.36/2014 titled as State Vs. Pramod Bajaj, pending before the
Court of ACMM/MM, Rohini.
ix. FIR No. 207/2014 titled as State Vs. Pramod Bajaj, registered with PS
Maurya Enclave.
x. Case No. 1/1/2013 title as Pramod Bajaj Vs. Rakhee Gupta pending
before the Court of ACMM/MM, Rohini, Court.
xi. Mat.App.(F.C.) Nos. 14/2014, 34/2016 and 39/2016 titled as Rakhee
Gupta Vs. Pramod Bajaj, pending before the Delhi High Court.
xii. Crl.M.C. No. 5372/2014 titled as Rakhee Gupta Vs. State NCT of
Delhi & Anr., pending before the Delhi High Court.
xiii. Crl.M.C. No. 5371/2014 titled as Rakhee Gupta Vs. State NCT of
Delhi & Anr., pending before the Delhi High Court.
xiv. Crl.M.C. No. 1298/2013 titled as Rakhee Gupta Vs. Pramod Bajaj &
Ors. Pending before the Delhi High Court.
xv. Crl.M.C. No. 137/2013 titled as B.C. Gupta Vs. Pramod Bajaj & Ors.
Pending before the Delhi High Court.
xvi. I.A. filed by Ms. Rakhee Gupta for recall of orders passed by the
Supreme Court in SLP No. 3045/2014 in the matter of Renu Vs.
Pramod Bajaj.
xvii. FIR No. 631/2010 at P.S. Hazratganj, Lucknow.
xviii. Complaint Case No. 460/2010 entitled as Pramod Bajaj Vs. B.C.
Gupta & Ors.
AND WHEREAS the first has filed Mat.App.(R.C.) Nos. 148/2016,
39/2016 and 34/2016 against the Second Party before the Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi.
AND WHEREAS the matters were referred to Samadhan (Delhi High
Court Mediation and Concilliation Centre) vide order dated
28.04.2016 passed by the Division Bench comprising of Hon'ble Ms.
Justice Gita Mittal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice I.S. Mehta appointing Ms.
Veena Ralli and Mr. Rajiv Agarwal, Advocate to act as mediatiors in
the above matter and the parties agreed to the said appointment.
AND WHEREAS during the process of mediation, the parties with the
assistance of the mediator, have voluntarily resolved their disputes
and differences on the following terms and conditions:-
1. The First Party has agreed to withdrawn all allegations raised by her
against the Second Party and/or against his family members in any of
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
the proceedings detailed herein above. Similarly, the Second Party
has agreed to withdraw all allegations raised by him against the First
Party and/or her family members and Mr. Vasdev Bahl in any of the
proceedings detailed herein above.
2. The First and the Second Parties agree to get their marriage dissolved
by obtaining a decree of divorce by filing joint petition(s) under
Section13-B (1) and (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
3. The First and the Second parties agree to file first motion petition
under Section 13-B (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act on or before
10.07.2016 and they further agree to file the second joint petition
under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act within 15 days from
the expiry of the statutory period of six months from the dated of
institution of the first motion petition before the competent Family
Court. The parties agreed to approach to Hon'ble Court for wavier of
six month statutory period.
4. The Second Party has agreed to get one flat consisting of one room,
one drawing room, kitchen, toiled and balcony bearing No. number
592, 2nd Floor B Block, Weavers Colony, Ashok Vihar, Phase IV,
Delhi hereinafter referred to as the "said property", in the name of
the First Party within one month from the date of the signing of the
present settlement agreement on Power of Attorney/Agreement to
Sell/Sale Deed (hereinafter referred to as the Said Property) which
such property shall be purchased by Sh. Vijay Kumar Bajaj, identified
and selected by the First Party. The said property has been agreed to
be purchased by the Second Party in the name of the First Party
towards all the claims of the First Party be it towards maintenance
(Past, Present and Future) permanent , alimony, stridhan, articles
etc., except the maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Thousand only) till the quashing of FIR Nos. 33/2009 and 207/2014,
against the Second Party and the First Party has agreed to accept the
above said property in her name towards all the claims of
maintenance (Past, Present and Future), permanent, alimony,
stridhan, articles etc., except the maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) till the quashing of FIR Nos. 33/2009
and 207/2014, arising out of the matrimonial discord between the
First and the Second Party. Since the said property has been selected
by the First Party, on the insistence of the builder to close the deal at
the earliest i.e. maximum within 30 days, the Second has already paid
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
the earnest money to the builder for the purchase of the said property
in the name of the First Party.
5. The Second Party has assured the First Party that the said property is
free from all types of encumbrances and has got a free title which has
been undertaken to be transferred in the name of the First Party by
way of power of attorney / agreement to sell / sale deed to be executed
by the builder / owner of the said property in favour of the First Party.
The Second Party further indemnifies the First Party in case of any
interest / right or title claimed by any Third Party in respect of the
said property. The Second Party agrees and accepts that the First
Party will become the absolute owner of the abovesaid property which
shall be free from all encumbrances in terms of the present Settlement
Agreement.
6. The parties agree that on sale of the said property, the documents
executed by the builder / owner in favour of the First Party shall be
kept with the Registrar General of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
within 15 days thereafter and simultaneous thereto a copy of the same
shall be delivered to the First Party. The First Party shall be entitled
to get such original documents from the Hon'ble Court after the
quashing of the FIR Nos. 33/2009 and FIR 207/2014 in terms of the
present Settlement Agreement.
7. The parties agree that on execution of the sale documents by the seller
of the above said property bearing No. 592, 2nd Floor B, Weavers
Colony, Ashok Vihar, Phase IV Delhi in favour of the First Party, the
possession shall be handed over by the seller to the Second Party and
the Second Party shall hand over the possession of the said property
to the First Party on the date the petitions for quashing of the above
two FIRs are disposed off, by handing over keys of the same to the
First Party. It is agreed between the parties that the First Party shall
not claim possession of the said property, purchased in terms of the
present Settlement Agreement till she appears before the Hon'ble
Court during disposal of quashing petition, after grant of divorce
decree by the concerned Family Court.
8. The parties agree that the petition for quashing of the FIR No.
33/2009 and FIR No.207/2014 shall be signed and filed by the parties
simultaneous to the signing and filing of the second joint motion
petition for divorce by mutual consent. The Second Party states that
charge sheet has been filed in FIR No/ 33/2009. It is agreed by the
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
First Party that she shall extend her full co-operation for quashing of
the above said FIR and/or charge sheet by moving an appropriate
application and/or affidavit in support thereof and/or to make
statement before the Hon'ble Court, if so required. The First Party
also agrees and undertakes to be present before the Hon'ble Court on
the date the said quashing petition is listed before the Hon'ble Court.
In case of her non-cooperation in filing of the required application
and/or affidavit in support of quashing of the FIR and for filing of the
Second motion Petition for divorce by mutual consent and/or non-
appearance before court during quashing petition and/or for second
motion petition for divorce by mutual consent, it shall not be
obligatory on the part of the Second Party to hand over the physical,
vacant and peaceful possession of the said property to the First Party.
In that situation the First Party shall not be entitled to withdraw the
original title document from the Hon'ble Court of Delhi.
9. The Second Party assures that no criminal case is pending at Lucknow
against the First Party based on registration of an FIR. It is agreed by
the First Party that she shall inform the Second Party about the details
of the criminal case pending at Lucknow within two months from the
date of deposit of title papers with the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
and the Second Party shall take requisite steps for quashing of the
said FIR and/or for withdrawal of the same under intimation to the
First Party. It is agreed by the First Party that on getting intimation
from the Second Party, she shall extend her cooperation for signing
the petition/application/affidavits and shall also be present on the date
the said petition/application is listed for hearing/disposal.
10.The First Party agrees that the Second Party shall pay maintenance
charges of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) payable by
the Second Party to the First Party in terms of court order only upto
the quashing of abovesaid FIRs and the First Party will not claim any
amount on account of maintenance for herself from the Second Party
in future nor will she file any such claim against the Second Party in
any court of law.
11.It is further agreed between the parties that on handing over
possession of the said property and on handing over of title documents
of the said property by the Hon'ble Court to the First Party, in terms
of clauses mentioned hereinabove, all the claims of the First Party
towards her maintenance (Past, Present and Future), permanent
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
alimony and stridhan, jewellery articles, etc., against the Second
Party and/or his family members, arising out of the marital discord
between the parties, shall stand satisfied and she shall be left with no
claim whatsoever against the Second Party and/or his family
members.
12.It is agreed between the parties that after the grant of first motion
petition for divorce and after deposit of the title papers by the Second
Party with the Registrar General of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
in terms of the present Settlement Agreement, the parties shall
withdrawn all their cases/complaints/RTIs against each other and also
against their respective family members and Mr. Vasdev Bahl, in
consultation with each other, keeping in mind their convenience for
signing and being present before the concerned Courts for withdrawal
of the below mentioned cases:-
i. Case No. 511/2014 titled as Rakhee Gupta Vs. Pramod Bajaj, pending
before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohini.
ii. Case No. 512/2014 titled as Pramod Bajaj Vs. Rakhee Pramod Baja,
pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohini.
iii. Case No. 159/2 of 2010 titled as State Vs. Pramod Bajaj, pending
before the Court of Ms. Sushil Bala Dagar, MM (Women Court),
Rohini.
iv. Case No.3/2016 titled as State Vs. Pramod Bajaj & Ors., pending
before the Court of Shri. VK Rai, ASJ, Rohini.
v. Case No.20/1/2014 titled as Pramod Bajaj Vs. RAkhee Gupta, pending
before the Court of ACMM/MM, Rohini.
vi. Case entitled as Pramod Bajaj Vs. M/s. Optimystix Ent. (P) Ltd. &
Ors., pending before the Court of ACMM/MM, Rohini.
vii. Case No.31/1/2013 titled as Rakhee Gupta Vs. Pramod Bajaj, pending
before the Court of ACMM/MM, Rohini
viii. Case No.36/2014 titled as State Vs. Pramod Bajaj, pending before the
Court of ACMM/MM, Rohini.
ix. Case No. 1/1/2013 title as Pramod Bajaj Vs. Rakhee Gupta pending
before the Court of ACMM/MM, Rohini, Court, Delhi. This matter
shall be withdrawn against the family members of the First Party and
the Second Party shall be free to continue with the matter.
x. Crl.M.C. No. 5372/2014 titled as Rakhee Gupta Vs. State NCT of
Delhi & Anr., pending before the Delhi High Court.
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
xi. Crl.M.C. No. 5371/2014 titled as Rakhee Gupta Vs. State NCT of
Delhi & Anr., pending before the Delhi High Court.
xii. Crl.M.C. No. 1298/2013 titled as Rakhee Gupta Vs. Pramod Bajaj &
Ors. Pending before the Delhi High Court.
xiii. Crl.M.C. No. 137/2013 titled as B.C. Gupta Vs. Pramod Bajaj & Ors.
Pending before the Delhi High Court. This matter shall be withdrawn
against the family members of the First Party and / or her family
members and the Second Party shall be free to continue the same
against other parties.
xiv. FIR No. 207/2014 titled as State Vs. Pramod Bajaj, registered with PS
Maurya Enclave.
xv. I.A. filed by Ms. Rakhee Gupta for recall of orders passed by the
Supreme Court in SLP No. 3045/2014 in the matter of Renu Vs.
Pramod Bajaj.
12. Both the parties undertake and agree not to initiate any further
proceedings, civil or criminal, complaints/RTI applications against
each other and / or their respective family members based on their
present matrimonial discord.
13. Both the parties undertake that in case any other
case/proceedings/complaint, civil or criminal, complaint/RTI
applications is/are found to have been filed by any party then the same
shall be deemed to have been settled in terms of the present Settlement
Agreement and the same shall be withdrawn before the filing of the
second joint petition for divorce by mutual consent.
14. Both the parties agree to remain bound in spirit and words with
the terms and conditions as mentioned in this settlement.
15. Both the parties agree and undertake not to speak ill about each
other, in the society, amongst their families, friends and relatives and
further agree not to put anything on social media.
16. Both the parties agree that in case the First Party does not abide
by the terms of this Settlement Agreement then the First Party shall
not be entitled to the possession of the said property. Similarly, if the
Second Party does not abide by the terms of this Settlement
Agreement, then the First Party shall be entitled to get the possession
of the said property through the process of law.
17. By signing this Agreement the parties hereto state that they have
no further claims or demands against each other and all their disputes
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
and differences have amicably been settled through the process of
Mediation.
18. The parties hereto confirm and declare that they have voluntarily
and of their own free will arrived at this Settlement Agreement in the
presence of the Mediators.
19. The parties undertake before the Hon'ble Court to abide by the
terms and conditions set out in the agreement and not to dispute the
same hereinaft6er in future."
8. Pursuant to the settlement agreement dated 18th June, 2016, the
marriage between the parties stands dissolved by a decree of divorce by
mutual consent.
9. To give effect to the mediation settlement agreement (Exh. C-1), the
parties have made the following statement before this court on 18.09.2017
which is reproduced as under:-
"Statement of Shri Pramod Kumar Bajaj, son of Late
Shri PD Bajaj, resident of 3/237 Vinay Khand Lucknow.
I state that I have settled the matter with the
respondent No.2/complainant Ms.Rakhee Gupta
before the Delhi High Court Mediation and
Conciliation Centre on 18th June, 2016 and the
terms of settlement has been acted upon between the
parties. The following cases are to be quashed:
1. The FIR No.207/14 registered at Police Station-
Prashant Vihar requires to be quashed in CRL.M.C.
2297/2017.
2. The FIR No.33/09, under Sections
406/420/494/498-A/506/323/120-B IPC registered
at Police Station-Bharat Nagar requires to be
quashed in CRL.M.C. 2298/2017.
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
3. In pursuance to the settlement, the respondent
Ms.Rakhee Gupta to withdraw the complaint in
CRL.M.C. 5371/2014 & CRL.M.C.5372/2014.
4. In pursuance to the settlement, the complaint case
No.13/1/2012 to be quashed in CRL.M.C. 137/2013.
5. In pursuance to the settlement, the complaint case
No.1/1/2013 to be quashed in CRL.M.C. 1298/2013.
6. I have no objection if the criminal complaint case
and the subsequent proceedings is quashed in
respect to Mr.N.S.Bundela in CRL.M.C.3577/2013.
7. I have no objection if the criminal complaint case
and the subsequent proceedings is quashed in
respect to Mr.Rishi Pal in CRL.M.C.4660/2013.
8. I have no objection if the criminal complaint case
and the subsequent proceedings is quashed in
respect to Mr.Krishan Pal in CRL.M.C.4663/2013.
9. I have no objection if the criminal complaint case
and the subsequent proceedings is quashed in
respect to Mr.Sudesh Dahiya in
CRL.M.C.4664/2013.
10. However, I do not wish to withdraw the
CRL.M.C. 2948/2013 titled asOptimystix
Entertainment India P. Ltd. & Ors. V/S. Pramod
Bajaj & Ors.
Statement of Ms.Rakhee Gupta, daughter of Shri BC
Gupta, resident of A-315, SFS, Phase-IV, Ashok Vihar,
New Delhi
I have heard the statement made by the petitioner
Shri Pramod Kumar Bajaj. I have no objection to in
view of the terms of settlement arrived between the
parties on 18th June, 2016 before the Delhi High
Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre."
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
10. It is pertinent to mention herein that both the parties have given
undertakings in the Settlement Agreement dated 18.06.2016 and have also
given undertakings before the Division Bench of this Court that they shall
strictly abide by all the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement
(Exh. C-1). As per Clause 12 of the settlement agreement, it is agreed
between the parties that they shall withdraw all their cases/complaints/RTIs
against each other and also against their respective family members.
Therefore, in view of the statements given before this Court by Shri Pramod
Kumar Bajaj and Ms.Rakhee Gupta on 18.09.2017; the following petitions
are disposed of in following manner.
a. In CRL.M.C. 2297/2017, the FIR No.2017/2014, registered
at Police Station-Prashant Vihar and all proceedings arising
of the same are hereby quashed.
b. In CRL.M.C. 2298/2017, the FIR No.33/2009, under
Sections 406/420/494/498-A/506/323/120-B IPC, registered
at Police Station-Bharat Nagar and all proceedings arising of
the same are hereby quashed.
c. CRL.M.C. 5371/2014 & CRL.M.C. 5372/2014 is dismissed
as withdrawn.
d. In CRL.M.C. 137/2013, the complaint case No.13/1/2012
pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini
Courts, Delhi is quashed.
e. In CRL.M.C. 1298/20132013, the complaint case
No.1/1/2013 pending in the court of Metropolitan
Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi is quashed.
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
f. In CRL.M.C. 3577/2013, the impugned order dated
19.02.2011 passed by ACJM, Lucknow in complaint
No.331/2011 and the subsequent proceedings in the said case
bearing No.13/1/2012 pending in the court of Metropolitan
Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi are quashed in respect to
the petitioner Mr.N.S.Bundela.
g. In CRL.M.C. 4660/2013, the impugned order dated
21.10.2010 passed by the court of learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-V, Lucknow in Complaint Case
No.3370/2010 and the subsequent proceedings in the new
Compliant Case No.01/01/2013 pending in the court of
Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi are quashed
in respect to Mr.Rishi Pal.
h. In CRL.M.C. 4663/2013,the impugned order dated
21.10.2010 passed by the court of learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-V, Lucknow in Complaint Case
No.3370/2010 and the subsequent proceedings in the case in
new Compliant Case No.01/01/2013 pending in the court of
Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi are quashed
in respect to Mr.Krishan Pal.
i. In CRL.M.C. 4664/2013, the impugned order dated
21.10.2010 passed by the court of learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-V, Lucknow in Complaint Case
No.3370/2010 and the subsequent proceedings in the new
Compliant Case No.01/01/2013 pending in the court of
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi are quashed
in respect to Ms.Sudesh Dahiya Pal.
11. Shri Pramod Kumar Bajaj in his statement recorded on 18.09.2017 has
stated that he does not want to withdraw the petition CRL.M.C. 2948/2013
titled as Optimystix Entertainment India P. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Pramod Bajaj &
Ors.
12. Now, only the petition CRL.M.C. 2948/2013 remains to be disposed
of. The instant petition, i.e. CRL.M.C. 2948/2013, is filed by the petitioners,
i.e. (1) M/s.Optimystix Entertainment India Pvt. Ltd., (2) Shri Vipul D. Shah
(Managing Director), (3) Shri Sanjiv Sharma (Chairman), (4) Shri Prashant
Sardesai (Head of News Media), (5) Ms. Shakshi Tanwar and (6) Shri
Anoop Soni, whereby the petitioners are seeking quashing of the complaint
case No.13/1/2012 pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini
Courts, Delhi. By way of said petition, the petitioners also seek quashing of
order dated 19.02.2011 passed by ACJM, Lucknow in complaint
No.331/2011 whereby the petitioners are summoned for their trial as accused
persons for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC.
13. The brief facts of case complaint No.331/2011 are that the respondent
No.2/complainant Shri Pramod Kumar Bajaj had filed a complaint against
the petitioners on the ground that they have defamed him in the society. In
this connection, the respondent No.2/complainant got his own statements
recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The respondent No.2/complainant has
stated that on 08.02.2010 at 8:30 p.m. and again at 11:00 a.m. next morning,
Sony Television Channel telecasted a programme titled as "Crime Patrol"
which was based on him, without taking his prior permission. It is further
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
stated by the respondent No.2/complainant that without giving an
opportunity to him to place his version, the telecast of the aforesaid TV
programme while acting ex-parte has resulted in severally hurting the
reputation and prestige of the respondent No.2/complainant. Thereafter, vide
impugned order dated 19.02.2011 passed by ACJM, Lucknow in complaint
No.331/2011 the petitioners herein in CRL.M.C. 2948/2013 were summoned
for their trial as accused persons for the offence punishable under Section
500 IPC.
14. I have heard the parties in person.
15. So far as the instant petition, i.e. CRL.M.C. 2948/2013, is concerned,
the same has arisen out of the matrimonial dispute which has been settled
between the parties. The respondent No.2/complainant is not ready to
withdraw the instant petition, i.e. CRL.M.C. 2948/2013.
16. The Apex Court in the case Pepsi Foods Ltd.& Anr. Vs. Special
Judicial Magistrate, 1998 (5) SCC 749, while holding that Criminal law
cannot be set into motion as a matter of course has observed as under:-
"Summoning of an accused in a criminal cases is a
serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as
a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to
bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the
complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The
order of the magistrate summoning the accused must
reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the
case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine
the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the
evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof
and would that be sufficient for the complainant to
succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of
recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of
the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the
evidence brought on record and may even himself put
questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit
answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or
otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie
committed by all or any of the accused."
17. 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.
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
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)
18. Admittedly, the complaint case No.628/2010 filed by the respondent
No.2 Shri Pramod Kumar Bajaj before the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-V, Lucknow and the summoning order dated 18.07.2010 arising
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
out of the complaint case No. 628/2010 were quashed by the Hon'ble High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench vide order dated
December 07, 2010 in Crl Misc Case No. 3692 of 2010; and the present
petition also arises on the same cause of action. The relevant paragraphs of
the judgment dated December 07, 2010 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Crl Misc Case No. 3692 of 2010
is reproduced as under:-
"Now it has to be seen as to whether the impugned
order suffers from non application of mind. From a
perusal of the copy of the complaint, it appears that the
complainant has not levelled any specific or general
allegations against the petitioner as to how he was
concerned with the telecast of the so called
objectionable defamatory episode. From a perusal of
the statement of the complainant recorded by the
learned Magistrate under 200 of the Code, it appears
that he has stated as follows:
"He had earlier married to Renu on 09.2.1999.
Thereafter, the marriage between the two was
dissolved. He entered into re-marriage with Rakhi
Gupta on 28.12.2008 who was resident of Delhi but
there had been no relation of husband and wife
between the two. Rakhi Gupta disclosed him that she
was a homosexual lady and she under the pressure of
her parents had entered into marriage with him. Rakhi
Gupta on 16.12.2009 lodged an F.I.R. for demand of
dowry against him (opposite party no. 2) . He was
arrested by the Delhi Police and thereafter he was
released on bail by the order of the learned Sessions
Judge. The police had beaten him and put him to
torture while he was under police custody. Sri Ranjeet
Kumar Verma also put him to torture. The Chitrans,
the Reporter came to the Police Station while he was in
police custody along with TV Camera. He pressurised
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
him and asked certain questions. Therefore he
answered those questions under pressure. The
interview taken by him was displayed on Sony
Entertainment Television under the heading 'Crime
Patrol' on 08.02.2010 between 08:30 PM to 09:30 PM.
He as well as his family members got badly defamed on
account of telecast of above programme. He has stated
that all the seven accused namely Manjit Singh, Sri
Kalan, Sri Chitrans, Mukund Lal Gaurav others were
the persons behind the episode."
From a perusal of the statement of the complainant, it
appears that the complainant has not specifically
stated as to how the petitioner was directly or
indirectly concerned with the so called telecast of
defamatory episode. The two witnesses namely Dinesh
Singh (PW-1) and Mahesh Prasad (PW-2) have stated
nothing as to how the petitioner was concerned for the
telecast of the so called defamatory episode. They have
only stated that the episode contained false allegation
of dowry demand and torture made by the complainant
to his wife Rakhi Gupta. The statement of these
witnesses only show that the complainant and his
family members were defamed on account of telecast of
the so called defamatory episode. From a perusal of
the statement of complainant and the statement of the
witnesses, it appears that the petitioner in this case has
been summoned as an accused by the learned
Magistrate being vicariously liable for the telecast of
the so called defamatory episode. A person cannot be
held vicariously liable for the criminal act done by
other person unless he is vicariously liable under any
law. The complainant or the witnesses have shown
nothing as to how the petitioner was vicariously liable
for telecast of the so called defamatory episode. He,
therefore, could not be summoned on the ground of
vicarious liability. In a case of Maksud Saiyed Vs State
of Gujrat and others (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
has held that while summoning an accused the learned
Magistrate has to see the complaint petition even if
given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety,
would lead to the conclusion that the accused was
personally liable for any offence. But in this case, from
a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the
learned Magistrate has not specifically observed as to
how the petitioner was liable for the telecast of so
called defamatory episode. The learned Magistrate has
summoned the accused only on the ground that the
complainant has named Manjit Singh, Sri Chitrans-
reporter and Mukund Lal Gaurav in his statement
recorded under Section 200 of the Code, therefore, it
will be proper to summon these accused. The learned
Magistrate has not specifically accorded his
satisfaction that on the basis of statement of the
complainant and the witnesses, the involvement of the
petitioner in commission of the so called offence is,
prima facie, established while he was expected to
accord his satisfaction. Unless the learned Magistrate
records specific finding as to how the petitioner was
concerned with the telecast of so called defamatory
episode, he could not be made vicariously liable for the
defamation. The impugned order, therefore, suffers
from non-application of mind and is liable to be
quashed.
So far as the question of vicarious liability of the
petitioner for telecasting the so called defamatory
episode is concerned, in this case admittedly the
petitioner was not directly concerned with the telecast
of the so called defamatory episode. He was the Chief
Executive Officer of the Company "Multi Screen Media
Pvt Ltd" at the time of so called incident, therefore, he
is said to be vicariously liable for the telecast of the so
called defamatory episode. In case of Maksud Saiyed
Vs State of Gujrat and others (supra), the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that a person cannot be vicariously liable
for the act done by any other person unless law
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
provides vicarious liability to him. In this case what
was expected from the complainant to show prima
facie case against the accused was that he was
expected to show that on the date of telecast of the
disputed episode under the heading 'Crime Patrol', the
petitioner had concern with the telecast of the so called
defamatory episode. The Petitioner in his petition has
specifically alleged that he was the Chief Executive
Officer of the 'Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd'. He was
looking after overall management of the company. The
Producer of the episode under the heading of Crime
Patrol was 'Optimistic Entertainment India Ltd'. It was
Optimistic Entertainment India Ltd. who had displayed
the programme 'Crime Patrol' on the 'Sony
Entertainment Television Channel'. The petitioner's
company was only exclusive distributor of 'MSM
Satellite (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd.' who was owner of the
Sony Entertainment Television. The petitioner was,
therefore, not even distantly related with the display of
disputed objectionable episode. Neither the
complainant nor the witnesses in their statements have
stated as to how the petitioner had got concern with
the telecast of the disputed objectionable episode. The
petitioner, therefore, cannot be made vicariously liable
for the telecast of the disputed episode.
In view of the above discussions, the Court is of the
opinion that the complaint filed by the complainant
against the petitioner is nothing but sheer abuse of
criminal process. The summoning order passed by the
learned Magistrate against the petitioner is bad in the
eyes of law and is liable to be quashed.
The petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned
summoning order dated 18.07.2010 as against the
petitioner passed by the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-V, Lucknow as well as the
proceeding of Complaint Case No. 628 of 2010;
Pramod Bajaj Vs. Manjit Singh and others, under
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
Sections 499, 500 I.P.C. pending before him as against
the petitioner is hereby quashed."
19. It is also pertinent to mention herein that the Hon'ble High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Crl Misc Case No. 3692 of 2010
on December 07, 2010 has quashed the impugned order dated 18.07.2010
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Lucknow as
well as the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 628 of 2010; which was filed
on the complaint of Pramod Kumar Bajaj on the same cause of action. Since
the whole dispute is matrimonial dispute and the same has been given
quietus by the parties through the mediation settlement, (Exh. C-1), I am of
the opinion that allowing further proceedings to continue the complaint case
No. 13/1/2012 pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini
Courts, Delhi as well as the summoning order dated 19.02.2011 passed by
the learned ACJM, Lucknow in complaint No.331/2011 would amount to
gross misuse of the process of the Court and miscarriage of justice where
personal scores and personal vendetta is being settled through criminal
proceedings.
20. Accordingly, in view of the settlement dated 18.08.2016 arrived
between Shri Pramod Kumar Bajaj and Ms.Rakhee Gupta and in view of the
judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases Pepsi Foods Ltd.
(supra) and State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal (supra), I deem it
appropriate to quash the complaint case No. 13/1/2012 pending in the court
of Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi as well as the summoning
order dated 19.02.2011 passed by the learned ACJM, Lucknow in complaint
No.331/2011 which is inconsequential in its effect. The petition is disposed
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
of accordingly. One copy of this judgment be placed on the files of the
petitions, i.e. (1) CRL.M.C. 2297/2017, (2) CRL.M.C. 2298/2017, (3)
CRL.M.C. 5371/2014, (4) CRL.M.C. 5372/2014, (5) CRL.M.C. 137/2013,
(7) CRL.M.C. 1298/2013, (8) CRL.M.C. 3577/2013, (9) CRL.M.C.
4660/2013, (10) CRL.M.C. 4663/2013 and (11) CRL.M.C. 4664/2013.One
copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned Court(s).
21. All pending applications (if any) are also disposed of. No order as to
costs.
I.S.MEHTA, J
SEPTEMBER 27, 2017/sr
CRL.M.C. Nos.2297/2017, 2298/2017, 5371/2014, 5372/2014,
137/2013, 2948/2013, 1298/2013 2013, 3577/2013, 4660/2013,
