The High Court of Delhi quashed FIR No.58/2010 underSections 452/323/506/34 IPC after the complainant, responding tenant Dharam Dass, voluntarily affirmed a settlement with petitioners without any coercion and the State did not oppose the petition.
FIR No.58/2010 and all consequential proceedings against Brijpal Yadav and Sonu @ Harinder were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~45
BRIJPAL YADAV & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr.Kunal Yadav, Avocate with petitioners No.1 and 2 in person.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Kamal Kr. Ghei, APP for State with SI Uma Singh, PS Gulabi Bagh Respondent No.2 in person
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
O R D E R
Crl.M.A. No. 8627/2018
The application is disposed.
Crl.M.C. No. 2415/2018
Vide the present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.58/2010, under Sections 452/323/506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Gulabi Bagh submitting inter alia to the effect that a settlement has been arrived at between the petitioners and the respondent No.2 and that no useful purpose would be served by the continuation of the proceedings in relation to the said FIR which is at the stage of prosecution evidence before the learned Trial Court.
The Investigating Officer of the case is present and has Crl.M.CNo.2415/2018 Page 1 of 3
identified the petitioners No.1 and 2 and the respondent No.2 present in the Court today. Proofs of identities have been produced by the petitioners and the respondent No.2. The photocopies of the same are Ex. CW-1/A to Ex.CW-1/C.
The respondent No.2 in his examination on oath by the Court has affirmed having sworn his affidavit EX.CW-2/A annexed to the petition and also testified to having signed the compromise/settlement deed dated 7.11.2017, Ex.-CW-2/B executed between him and the petitioners voluntarily of his own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter and submits that he does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners No.1 and 2 nor does he want the petitioners No. 1 and 2 to be punished in relation thereto. The respondent No.2 further submits that he has studied till standard 12th and used to previously work as an Accounts Clerk with the Railways.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners No.1 and 2 that the respondent No.2 in his cross-examination before the learned Trial Court has not supported the prosecution version.
Learned APP for the State also, in the facts and circumstances, does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners No.1 and 2 seeking quashing of the FIR No.58/2010, under Sections 452/323/506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Gulabi Bagh .
In view of the statement made by the respondent No.2 on the record, there appears no reason to disbelieve the statement made by the respondent No.2 that he has arrived at a settlement with the Crl.M.CNo.2415/2018 Page 2 of 3
petitioners voluntarily of his own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter and that he does not seek the continuation of the proceedings in relation to the FIR in question before the learned Trial Court any further and that he has made his statement voluntarily of his own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter.
The offences punishable under Sections 323/506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 are compoundable. The offence under Section 452 Indian Penal Code, 1860 being not compoundable, in view of the statement made by the respondent No.2, in the facts and circumstances of the case, who has further testified to the effect that the petitioners No.1 and 2 were his tenant in the premises in which he is now residing and he has now no problems with them, it is considered appropriate in the interest of justice to put a quietus to the litigation between the parties so that peace and harmony between them is restored and as there is no opposition on behalf of the State, in view of the statement made by the respondent No.2 and in the circumstances of the case, the FIR No.58/2010, under Sections 452/323/506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Gulabi Bagh and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners No. 1 and 2 namely , Brijpal Yadav and Sonu @ Harinder are thus quashed.
Copy of the order be given Dasti, as prayed.
ANU MALHOTRA, J
MAY 08, 2018/SV Crl.M.CNo.2415/2018
Page 3of 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
Item No. 45 Crl. M.C. 2415/2018 BRIJPAL YADAV & ANR. Vs. STATE & ANR. 08.05.2018 CW-1 W/SI UMA SINGH, POLICE STATION GULABI BAGH ON S.A.
I identify the petitioners No.1 and 2, namely , Brijpal Yadav and Sonu @ Harinder as being the accused and the respondent No.2 Dharam Dass, as being the complainant of the FIR No.58/2010, under Sections 452/323/506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Gulabi Bagh present in the Court today. The original Election Commission Identity Card of the petitioner No.1, the original Adhaar Card of the Petitioner No.2, and of the respondent No.2 have been produced. The photocopies of the same qua the petitioners No.1 and 2 being Ex.CW-1/A and Ex.CW-1/B and of the respondent No.2 being Ex.CW-1/C respectively (Originals seen & returned.).
RO & AC 08.05.2018
ANU MALHOTRA, J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI Item No. 45
Crl. M.C. 2415/2018
BRIJPAL YADAV & ANR. Vs. STATE & ANR.
08.05.2018
CW-2 DHARAM DASS S/O MAM RAJ, AGED 62 YEARS, R/O B-226, SARUP NAGAR, DELHI-42 PREVIOUSLY RESIDING AT 64/5, RAILWAY COLONY, GULABI BAGH, DELHI. ON S.A.
I have studied till standard 12th and was an Accounts Clerk with the Railways.
My affidavit annexed to the petition bears my signatures thereon at points A and B on Ex.CW-2/A.
The compromise/ settlement deed dated 7.11.2017 executed between the petitioners nos. 1 and 2 and myself also bears my signatures thereon as visible at point ‘A’ on Ex.CW-2/B. I have signed both these document voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter.
The petitioner Nos.1 & 2, namely , Brijpal Yadav and Sonu @ Harinder were my tenants and have now since vacated the premises and I have now no problems with them.
In view of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioners No.1 and 2, I do not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners No.1 and 2 seeking quashing of the FIR No. 58/2010, under Sections 452/323/506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Gulabi Bagh nor do I want the
petitioners No.1 and 2 to be punished in relation thereto. I have stated so voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter.
RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J 08.05.2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether FIR No.58/2010 under Sections 452/323/506/34 IPC should be quashed in view of a settlement between the petitioner and the complainant.
Whether non-compoundable offence under Section 452 IPC can be quashed considering the settlement by the complainant and lack of opposition from the State.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
BRIJPAL YADAV
SONU @ HARINDER
STATE
DHARAM DASS
ANU MALHOTRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
