Back
2002 Supreme(Del) 410
High Court Of Delhi
NANAK SINGH SEHGAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
Decided On : 03/21/2002
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the inherent power to quash proceedings if allowing them to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court, especially in cases where a compromise has been reached and one party attempts to backtrack after receiving substantial benefits.
Headnote:
Abuse of Process - Quashing of FIR - Indian Penal Code - Section 147, 149, 341, 452, 380, 448, 506 - Article 226, Section 482 of CrPC
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over a plot of land owned by a Gurdwara. The respondent lodged a first information report (FIR) alleging offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. A civil suit was filed, and a compromise was reached between the parties, with the respondent receiving a substantial sum of money.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent had received a significant amount as part of the compromise and was now attempting to backtrack. The petitioners were willing to pay the balance amount, and the court concluded that allowing the respondent to continue with the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR should be quashed in light of the compromise reached between the parties and the respondent's attempt to backtrack after receiving a substantial sum of money.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles of abuse of process and the need to prevent misuse of the legal system. It considered the compromise reached in the civil suit and the respondent's actions in light of the settlement.
Final Decision: The court directed the petitioners to deposit the balance amount with the court, and upon doing so, quashed the FIR.
( 1 ) NANAK Singh Sehgal and others have pressed into service provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure for quashing FIR No. 139/2000 registered at police Station Model Town, Delhi with respect to offences punishable under Section 147, 149, 341, 454, 380, 458 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
( 2 ). The facts of the petitioners case can be delineated to be that most of them are office bearers of Gurdwara Gujranwala Town Satsang Sabha. The plot of land underneath Gurdwara measuring 241. 67 sq. yds was owned by Permanand Chhabra who donated the same in favour of Gurudwara Gujranwala Town Satsangh Sabha vide a Power of Attorney, agreement to execute the conveyance deed etc. Subsequently it is claimed that document in support were also executed in favour of gurudwara Gujranwala Town Satsang Sabha. Thereafter the plot was constructed upon and Gurudwara building was set up. Respondent no. 2, O P Arora claimed himself to be a doctor, he played a trick on the previous owner and some how entered into the ground floor rear portion of property bearing no. 45, gujranwala Town, Delhi. On 18. 2. 2001 the Junior engineer from Municipal Corporation approached the police Station Model Town and requested for early assistance for demolition of unauthorised construction of plot no. B-45 Gujrawala Town, Delhi. Respondent no. 2 lodged a daily diary entering alleging that a dacoity has taken place. The spot was visited by the police and respondent no. 2 thereupon had informed that somebody had wrongly informed the police control room in this regard.
( 3 ). Thereafter respondent no. 2 through a friend filed a criminal writ petition no. 170/2000 seeking a direction for tracing the respondent no. 2 0 P Arora and for registration of the First Information Report. Thereafter respondent no. 2 got a registered a first information report No. 139 of 2000 in question. After registration of first information report petitioners had claimed anticipatory bail from the court of Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioners had been admitted to anticipatory bail. On 2 9/03/2000 this court dismissed the criminal writ petition no. 170/2000 when respondent no. 2 was produced to have become infructuous.
( 4 ). A suit No. 303/2000 had been filed by Gurudwara gujranwala Town Satsangh Sabha referred to above against respondent no. 2 and Delhi Vidyut Board. In the said suit a compromise was arrived at between the petitioners and respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 had agreed to receive a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs in full and final settlement of all claims and for handing over portion of the property in his occupation. A sum of rs. 5,50,000/- was received by him. He handed over the keys of the portion in his possession and the balance was to be paid to him as understood by him on cancellation/withdrawal/quashing of the first information report no. 139/2000 Police Station Model town. The statement of the parties were recorded in civil suit and respondent no. 2 even had sworn an affidavit in this regard. Even this court had taken note of the said compromise to have been arrived at between the parties and respondent no. 2 while the earlier writ petition no. 296/2000 was dismissed to be withdrawn.
( 5 ). Petitioners seek quashing of the first information report alleging that despite the compromise and payment of the amount to respondent no. 2 he has taken little steps in that direction and a valid compromise has been arrived at. It is further claimed that nothing incriminating even had been found against the petitioners.
( 6 ). Respondent no. 2 had appeared in person. He was afforded an opportunity to engage a counsel but he declined. He submitted his written submissions and statement in this regard. Respondent no. 2 claimed that no State machinery had earlier come to his rescue. The petitioners had looted his house and destroyed it completely. The police had detained him for quite a long time. He is hiding and chan
