Dismissed

Mansi Bansal v. State ( NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi HC19 Sept 2016CRL.M.C./1182/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed quashing petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR under Section 420 IPC. The Court held that since the complainant did not agree to quash due to an ongoing dispute over settlement terms and unpaid amounts, the petitions could not be allowed as disputed factual questions could not be adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

The petitions were dismissed; liberty is granted to file fresh petition for quashing if amicable settlement is reached.

Mansi Bansal Vs State ( NCT of Delhi) & Anr. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~42 & 43 *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

¶2

DECIDED ON : 19^th SEPTEMBER, 2016

¶3

CRL.M.C.10/2014

¶4

RITESH BANSAL & ORS. ..... Petitioners

¶5

Through : Mr.Abhay Kumar, Advocate.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents

¶8

Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP with SI Surender Pal Hudda. Mr.U.A.Khan, Advocate for R2 along with R2 in person.

¶9

AND

¶10

CRL.M.C.1182/2016

¶11

MANSI BANSAL ..... Petitioner

¶12

Through : Mr.Abhay Kumar, Advocate. versus

¶13

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents

¶14

Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP with SI Surender Pal Hudda. Mr.U.A.Khan, Advocate for R2 along with R2 in person.

¶15

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

¶16

Crl.M.C. 10/2014 & connected matter. Page 1 of 3

¶17

S.P.GARG, J. (Oral)

¶18

Present petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the FIR No.357/2012 registered under Section 420 IPC at PS Krishan Nagar. Status report is on record. Petitions are contested by the respondent No.2.

¶19

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties including the counsel for the complainant and have examined the file. Undisputedly, the petitioners are facing trial in case FIR No.357/2012 registered under Section 420 IPC at PS Krishan Nagar. Admittedly, the parties had resolved their disputes vide compromise deed dated 11.12.2012.

¶20

The complainant is present with counsel. I have enquired from the complainant whether the matter has been settled amicably with the petitioners and the terms and conditions of the settlement have been complied with. Complainant’s counsel urged that the terms and conditions of the compromise deed have not been adhered to by the petitioners and the complainant is not agreeable for quashing of the FIR on the basis of said settlement.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners urges that the complainant cannot be permitted to resile from the settlement arrived at vide compromise deed dated 11.12.2012. She has already received substantial amount pursuant to the said settlement. She cannot be permitted to deviate from the express terms and conditions of the settlement to claim that `4 lacs more were to be paid by the petitioners.

¶22

Present petitions have been filed for quashing of the FIR in question on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties vide

¶23

Crl.M.C. 10/2014 & connected matter. Page 2 of 3

¶24

compromise deed dated 11.12.2012. The complainant, however, is not agreeable to the quashing of the FIR on the basis of the said settlement. Her contention is that the last payment which the petitioners were required to pay as per the terms and conditions of the said settlement was not given to her. A cheque for a sum of 1 lac given by the petitioners on the presentation was dishonoured. The said payment has yet not been made to her. It is further contended that the petitioners had agreed to pay 4 lacs more as per oral agreement and till the said payments are given, she cannot give consent for quashing of the FIR.

¶25

A dispute has arisen between the parties regarding the terms and conditions of the settlement. There is also controversy between the parties whether `4 lacs more was to be given by the petitioners to the complainant. All these disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings.

¶26

Since the complainant is not agreeable to the quashing of the FIR on the basis of the settlement, the present petitions can’t be allowed and are dismissed.

¶27

Liberty is, however, granted to the parties to file petition for quashing of FIR if amicable settlement between them is arrived at.

¶28

SEPTEMBER 19, 2016 / tr

Mansi Bansal v. State ( NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mansi Bansal v. State ( NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhir Kumar Vs the State (Nct of Delhi)

Satbeer Singh Vs the State ( Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Santosh Kumar & Anr. Vs State & Anr.

Mayank Gupta & Ors. Vs the State ( NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Attar Singh & Ors. Vs State ( Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Deepika Vs Raja Ram Singh Rana & Anr.