Delhi High Court
Shobha Dube vs State And Anr. on 7 May, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: May 07, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 1620/2017
SHOBHA DUBE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pramod K. Dubey, Mr. Shiv
Chopra & Mr. Kushank Sindhu,
Advocates
Versus
STATE AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State with SI Mukesh Khata
Mr. S.K. Rai, Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 2 to 4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
In FIR No. 53/2008, registered at police station Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi, charge-sheet has been filed for the offence under Section 420
IPC against respondent No.2 herein on 7th December, 2009 while
concluding as under:-
"Keeping in view the above facts it is submitted that Mr.
Aditya dube mentioned above has sold out his portion 1/8ths
share of said property knowing fully well that he has
relinquished the same in the year 2002 to Mr. Sharafat Debe.
It was sold to Mr. M C Gupta against consideration of Rs. 29
lacs causing wrongful loss to Mr. Sharal due and wrongful
gain to himself. There are sufficient evidences on file accused
Aditya Prasad Dube moved the Hon'ble Court of sessions,
New Delhi and has been granted anticipatory bail considering
the age and family dispute of property on 30/7/2009, as
complainant has made submissions in his letter dated
08/01/2009 which was submitted to SHO/BKR and same is
placed on file. He has been formerly arrested on 4/8/2009 ad
released on bail as directed by the court. In regard to Sh.
Meher Chand Gupta no evidence has been found to charge
sheet him. However his act and intention was to use pressure
tactics to force the complainant for sale of their share for
which he paid Rs.180000/- to Aditya P Dube but Mr. Aditya
Dube returned the said amount. No evidence has come on
record to prove section 341 IPC or 420 against Mr. Mehar
Chand Gupta, he is placed in para 12 in this report."
Trial court vide order of 19th September, 2016 had referred subject
matter of this FIR to mediation while negating petitioner's objection, who
is legal heir of Sharad Dubey, by observing that legal heirs of a witness
cannot stop reference of the case to mediation. The aforesaid order has
been upheld by the Revisional Court vide impugned order of 30 th March,
2017.
Petitioner's counsel assails the impugned order while submitting
that petitioner has locus to oppose the mediation because there is no
settlement with witness- Sharad Dube or his legal heir i.e. petitioner.
Attention of this Court is drawn to sub section 4 (b) of Section 320
Cr.P.C. to submit that a legal representative of a person competent to
compound the offence can go ahead with the compounding of the offence
in question with the consent of the Court. However, it is submitted that no
reference to mediation has been infact made but the second respondent is
now insisting for reference of the subject matter of this FIR to mediation
on the strength of impugned order.
On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4
supports the impugned order and submits that the subject matter of this
FIR has been already settled with third party i.e. M.C.Gupta, as the sale
consideration has been returned to him and the possession of the property
in question has been restored to petitioner. So, it is submitted that there is
no justification to proceed with the FIR in question on merits.
Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order and sub section 4
(b) of Section 320 Cr.P.C., I find that petitioner is aggrieved party and the
reference of the disputes in question qua petitioner to mediation without
her consent cannot be done.
Accordingly, impugned orders are clarified to the extent that
without consent of petitioner, proceedings pertaining to petitioner arising
out of FIR in question be not brought to an end on the basis of any
mediated settlement.
With aforesaid clarification, this petition is disposed of, while not
commenting on merits of the case.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 07, 2019
r
