Delhi High Court
Balvinder Kaur & Ors vs State & Anr on 11 March, 2019
$~10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 11th March, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 4603/2016 and Crl. M.A. 19242/2016
BALVINDER KAUR & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. S.K. Kashyap, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for
State with ASI Prem Ram Arya
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The fourth petitioner was a tenant in house no.50/2015, third
floor, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi-110018, the second respondent being
the landlord, the former using the said premises for residence of self
and other members of the family which included his mother (first
petitioner), his maternal uncle (third petitioner), wife of the said
maternal uncle (second petitioner), son of the said petitioner (fifth
petitioner). Some dispute arose between the landlord and tenant and
became subject matter of civil litigation (Civil suit no.221/2008), the
said suit having been decreed in favour of the second respondent
(complainant). Eventually, in the course of execution proceedings
(case no.08/2009), the parties agreed to amicably resolve the issue, in
furtherance of which the fourth petitioner undertook to pay to the
second respondent, a total amount of Rs.1.6 Lakhs to full and final
satisfaction of his claims.
2. During the interregnum, first information report (FIR)
no.348/2009 had been registered with police station Hari Nagar at the
instance of the second respondent, facts alleged therein constituting
offences under Sections 448, 506, 380, 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC); the first to fifth petitioners besides the sixth petitioner being
named as accused. The said FIR was investigated into and charge-
sheet laid before court in due course. On its basis, charges were
framed by the Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 14.12.2010
putting the petitioners on trial for offences under Section 457 / 34 IPC,
Section 380 / 34 IPC and Section 506 Part II / 34 IPC, the second
respondent being reflected in the said charges as the complainant
(victim).
3. On the basis of the settlement between the parties, inter alia,
reflected by the proceedings in the execution court recorded on
08.01.2016, the present petition was submitted invoking the inherent
power and jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) seeking quashing of the aforesaid
criminal case.
4. The parties appeared before the Registrar (Original) in terms of
the directions given in the order dated 12.09.2018 and their statements
have been recorded, each of the six petitioners having affirmed the
settlement on oath. Similarly, the second respondent, by his
statement, recorded by the Registrar on 22.10.2018 has confirmed that
he has received an amount of Rs.1.60 Lakhs from the petitioners as
full and final settlement of the dispute, he having no objection to the
FIR being quashed.
5. Following the spirit of the law laid down in Gian Singh Vs.
State of Punjab and Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Aahir
alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat
and Another, (2017) 9 SCC 641; the controversy between the parties
essentially having arisen out of civil dispute, the prayer in the petition
deserves to be granted.
6. In the above facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed.
The crime registered by the police vide FIR 348/2009 involving
offences punishable under Sections 448, 506, 380, 34 IPC of Police
Station Hari Nagar and the proceedings emanating therefrom against
the petitioners are hereby quashed.
7. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Dasti to both sides.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
MARCH 11, 2019
yg
