Satish Sharma vs State (Nct Of Delhi)

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.234 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 10791 of 2015)

Satish Sharma & Anr. Appellant(s)

VS.

State (NCT OF Delhi) & Ors. Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Maheshwari, J

Leave granted.

2. The appellants herein, said to be the injured persons

in the incident in question, that had taken place on

05.12.2010 at C-17, New West Avenue, Club Road,

Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi and formed the subject

matter of FIR No. 382 of 2010 registered with Punjabi

Bagh Police Station, New Delhi for offences under

Sections 323, 324, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code Signature Not Verified

('IPC'), have questioned the order dated 06.08.2015 in Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2019.02.08 17:43:03 IST Reason:

Crl. M.C. No. 3673 of 2013 and Crl. M.A. No. 13346 of 2

2013 whereby, the High Court of Delhi, while allowing

the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure

Code ('Cr.P.C.'), has quashed the proceedings under the

said FIR on being satisfied that the dispute had

essentially been the one between landlord and tenant,

which stood cleared/settled in terms of the Deed of

Compromise executed by the parties.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the

High Court has been in error in quashing the proceedings

under the FIR aforesaid merely on the basis of the

statement of one of the injured persons whereas, there

were three injured persons in the incident, two of them

being the appellants, who were not made parties before

the High Court and were not heard in the matter.

4. The submissions made on behalf of the appellants

are countered by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who were

the accused persons and were the petitioners before the

High Court. It is submitted that during the course of

investigation in the FIR aforesaid, the Deed of

Compromise dated 30.05.2011 was executed between

the parties, which was duly signed, by the informant-Ms. 3

Jyoti Sharma (respondent No. 4 herein) as also by the

appellants-Shri Satish Sharma and Shri Deepak Bhardwaj

on one hand; and by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as also

by one Shri Manish Talreja and another Shri Ashok Kumar

on the other. It is further asserted that in fact, the deed

was drafted by the appellant No. 2-Shri Deepak Bhardwaj,

one of the alleged injured person; and the complainants

received a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs from the contesting

respondents, the accused in the said FIR. It is also

submitted that the appellant No. 2-Shri Deepak Bhardwarj

was indeed present before the High Court at the time of

passing of the impugned order dated 06.08.2015 and his

appearance is distinctly marked as counsel for the

respondent No. 2 before the High Court (who is

respondent No. 4 herein). It is contended that the parties

had consciously compromised the matter and the present

appeal is merely an attempt to get the matter reopened

on the baseless premise and a flimsy ground that all the

alleged injured persons were not heard in the High Court.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

having perused the material placed on record, we are 4

unable to find even a wee bit of reason to consider

interference in this matter.

6. Perusal of the record makes it clear that in relation

to the incident that had taken place on 05.12.2010,

written information leading to the said FIR was filed by

the respondent No. 4 Ms. Jyoti Sharma only on

24.12.2010. The respondent No. 4 alleged in the written

information, inter alia, that the respondent No. 3 Shri

Sushil Malhotra, the respondent No. 2 Ms. Sunita

Malhotra, the son of respondent No. 3, another person

Shri Ashok Kumar, and 5-6 goonda-type persons, who

were armed with weapons, came to her house at C-17,

New West Avenue, Club Road, Punjabi Bagh (West), New

Delhi; that the respondent No. 3 slapped the informant

and his son pressed her neck whereupon her brother

(appellant No. 1) came for the rescue but the son of

respondent No. 2 and the said Shri Ashok Kumar threw

him (appellant No. 1) on the ground and assaulted him

with leg blows; that at the same time, Shri Deepak

Bhardwaj (appellant No. 2), nephew of the informant, also

came to their rescue but the son of respondent No. 3 5

assaulted him with a borer, which pierced into his left leg;

and that the other persons also surrounded the appellant

No. 2 and assaulted him and snatched away his gold

chain. It was also alleged that the respondent No. 2 pulled

the hair of the informant and hurled filthy abuses.

7. It appears that the investigation in this matter

remained pending for a long length of time but,

ultimately, the parties sat together and executed the

Deed of Compromise dated 30.05.2011. The contents of

the said Deed of Compromise disclose the relevant

background aspect of the matter that the ground floor of

the property in question at C-17, New West Avenue, Club

Road, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi had been

purchased by respondent No. 2 Ms. Sunita Malhotra

whereas, its first floor and second floor had been

purchased by her daughter Ms. Ashita Talaeja, wife of Shri

Manish Talreja; and the husband of the informant

remained in occupation of the rear portion of first floor, in

the capacity as tenant only. It is further made out from

the said deed that on 05.12.2010, during the renovation

work at the ground floor of the property in question, there 6

had been heated exchanges between the families of the

informant (respondent No. 4) on one hand and

respondent No. 2 on the other; and the incident led to the

filing of the FIR by respondent No. 4 and a counter

complaint by the respondent No. 3, which was pending

before the Magistrate. After having recorded the

background aspects, the parties categorically stated in

the Deed of Compromise thus:-

"2. That with the intervention of the common friends the said dispute between both parties has been settled amicably. Both the parties are ready to compound the said FIR No. 382 of 2010 P.S. Punjabi Bagh and as well as the complaint case titled Sushil Malhotra Versus Bharat Sharma and others pending before Sh. Lavleen MM Tis Hazari Court and move applications in this regard.

3. That the both parties have entered into this compromise deed voluntary and without any pressure or coarsen. (sic)”

8. On the matter being taken up by the High Court on

the petition filed by the accused persons for quashing the

proceedings in the FIR aforesaid, it was submitted ad

idem on behalf of the accused persons as also the

informant that the matter was settled in compromise

between the parties and that a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs was 7

also paid by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by way of Pay

Order bearing No. 407575 dated 06.08.2015. The High

Court cautiously took note of the guiding principles for

exercise of power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. while

dealing with the proposition of settlement and for

quashing the criminal proceedings with reference to the

decisions of this Court in Gian Singh vs. State of

Punjab & Anr : 2012 (10) SCC 303 and Narinder

Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr : 2014(6) SCC 466.

Thereafter, in the totality of the facts and circumstances

of the case and in view of the affidavit of informant, the

High Court formed the opinion that the landlord-tenant

dispute between the parties stood cleared/settled in

terms of the said Deed of Compromise and continuance

of the proceedings arising out of the said FIR would be an

exercise in futility.

9. We are unable to find any error or illegality in the

approach of the High Court in this case. As noticed, the

FIR in question itself was lodged after 19 days from the

date of alleged incident. The accused party had also

attempted to maintain a cross-case by filing a complaint 8

before the Magistrate. The Deed of Compromise dated

30.05.2011 had apparently been signed by the informant

(respondent No. 4) as also the present appellants, the

alleged injured persons. The respondent No. 4 had

affirmed the terms of compromise before the High Court

by filing her affidavit and it was, inter alia, given out that

a sum of Rs.25 Lakhs was paid by the accused persons to

the complainants. Though the appellants seek to state

the grievance about want of notice to them while

quashing the proceeding in the FIR, for they being also

the injured persons but then, interestingly, the appellant

No. 2 is shown to have remained present before the High

Court as counsel for the informant, who was respondent

No. 2 before the High Court. Moreover, even in the

petition filed before this Court, the appellants have not

disputed the factum of execution of the Deed of

Compromise dated 30.05.2011.

10. In the cumulative effect of what has been noticed

and observed hereinabove, we are satisfied that the High

Court has rightly found no reason that the matter be

allowed to be dragged further and has rightly quashed 9

the proceedings under the said FIR in proper exercise of

its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

11. In view of the above, no case for interference in this

matter at the instance of the appellants is made out. This

appeal, therefore, stands dismissed.

………………………………..J. (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)

...............................................J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI) 1 New Delhi, Dated: 8th February, 2019