Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 541
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SURESH KAIT, J.
Sanjeev Bhatia & Another
Versus
State (Govt. Of Nct, Delhi) & Others
CRL.M.C. 2357 of 2011
Decided on : 22-02-2012
For the Appellant:Amit Vohra, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP with Inspector Ishwar Singh & PS Naraina, Advocates.
The binding effect of the compromise and the full and final settlement made to the complainant's son as the attorney warranted the quashing of the FIR.
Headnote:
Compromise - Quashing of FIR - The court quashed the FIR under Sec. 420/120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on the compromise between the parties and the full and final settlement made to the complainant's son as the attorney.
Fact of the Case:
The matter between the parties got compromised and the total payment was made to the son of the complainant/respondent being the attorney. Notice was issued, and process to serve the notice was filed by the petitioner, but service reports were awaited. The son of the complainant received the settlement amount and the trial court recorded the statements of the son and attorney of the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the matter had been compromised, and the statements of the son and attorney of the complainant had a binding effect. Considering the compromise and the full and final settlement made to the complainant's son as the attorney, the court quashed the FIR.
Issues: The main issue was whether the compromise between the parties and the full and final settlement made to the complainant's son as the attorney warranted the quashing of the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the compromise between the parties and the full and final settlement made to the complainant's son as the attorney, which had a binding effect. The court refrained from imposing costs due to the financial position of the petitioner.
Final Decision: CRL.M.C. 2357/2011 is allowed, and FIR No. 26/2011 dated 18.02.2011 under Sec. 420/120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860, PS Naraina, is hereby quashed.
SURESH KAIT, J.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 23.02.2011, the matter between the parties got compromised and the total payment was made to the son of the complainant/respondent being the attorney.
2. In the instant petition, notice was issued vide order dated 27.07.2011. Thereafter process to serve the notice has been filed by the petitioner to serve respondent No.2, however, both the times, service report were awaited.
3. I note that vide order dated 25.02.2011, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dwarka, New Delhi has recorded that Sh. J.P. Gupta son of the complainant received the settlement amount of Rs. 1 lac on behalf of his father complainant as full and final settlement. The letter of authority has also been filed on record. Statement of the son of complainant was recorded as under:
“I have received a sum of Rs. 1 lac from Smt. Harmohinder Bhatia, mother of the accused Sanjeev Bhatia towards full and final settlement in the present case vide FIR No. 26./2011, PS Naraina.”
4. Inspector DIU/SW Ishwar Singh has filed the report dated 31.1.2012 in this Court and has submitted that respondent No.2 has been informed regarding the date and direction issued by this Court. The report is taken on record.
5. Learned APP has submitted that if this Court is inclined to quash the FIR, then heavy cost be imposed upon the petitioner. I find force in the submission of the learned APP but keeping in view the financial position of the petitioner, I refrain myself from imposing costs.
6. I note, on the said report, the signature of respondent No.2, complainant, has been taken. While signing, it is written that his wife is on bed.
7. May be due to this reason mentioned in report, neither the complainant nor his attorney has come to the Court. The other reason may be as he has already received the total amount.
8. Since the matter has been compromised, the statements of the son and attorney of the complainant has been recorded by the trial court which has a binding effect, in the circumstances, FIR No. 26/2011 dated 18.02.2011 under Sec. 420/120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860, PS Naraina, is hereby quashed.
9. Accordingly, CRL.M.C. 2357/2011 is allowed.
