Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 3855
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
I.S. MEHTA, J.
SMT. MOHINDER KAUR AND ORS. – PETITIONERS
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT, DELHI AND ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CRL.M.C. 1900 of 2015 and CRL.M.A.No.6829 of 2015
Decided On : 22-09-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Subhash Jha, Mr. Idrish Javed
For the Respondents: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, S.I. Laxman Choudhary, Mr. K.K. Manan, Mr. Ankush Narang, Ms. Shweta Sain
The subsequent filing of a criminal complaint after reaching a settlement/compromise can be considered an abuse of the process of the Court, warranting the quashing of the summoning order and dismissal of the complaint.
Headnote:
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of summoning order - Sections 420/406/328/506/120-B IPC - Settlement/compromise reached between the parties - Abuse of process of law - Mohd. Shamim And Others vs. Nahid Begum (Smt) And Another; (2005) 3 SCC 302, URI Civil Contractor AB vs. Mrs. Pampa Mukherjee; 1995 (32) DRJ, State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal; AIR 1992 SC 604
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners for alleged offences under Sections 420/406/328/506/120-B IPC. The petitioners sought quashing of the summoning order, citing a settlement/compromise reached between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the settlement/compromise reached between the parties was voluntary and without coercion, and the subsequent criminal complaint was an abuse of the process of the Court.
Issues: Whether the settlement/compromise reached between the parties should prevent the criminal proceedings from continuing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the subsequent filing of a criminal complaint after reaching a settlement/compromise was an abuse of the process of the Court, and quashed the summoning order and dismissed the complaint.
Final Decision: The impugned summoning order and all proceedings arising from the complaint were quashed, and the complaint was dismissed. The petition was allowed and disposed of.
I.S. MEHTA, J.
1. Instant is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. whereby the petitioners, i.e. (1) Mohinder Kaur, (2) Inder Jeet Kaur and (3) Inderpal Singh Sahni, are seeking quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 26.03.2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrat-08 (SE) in CC No. 173/1.
2. The brief facts stated are that the respondent No.2, i.e. Tejinder Kaur Sahni, had filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in the year 2010 against the petitioners, i.e. (1) Mohinder Kaur, (2) Inder Jeet Kaur and (3) Inderpal Singh Sahni, and Mona L. Busby (daughter of the respondent No.2) for the alleged offences committed under Sections 420/406/328/506/120-B IPC in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
3. It was alleged in the compliant that the respondent No.2 was persuaded to come to Delhi by her daughter- Mona L. Busby as she wanted to purchase a flat in Delhi with intention to settle in Delhi. It was further alleged that the respondent No.2 was allegedly drugged/intoxicated by the accused and she was taken to the office of the Registrar, Mehrauli under the influence of intoxicating substance where she was made to sign some written and blank documents purported to be the documents for purchasing a flat in the joint name of her and her daughter.
4. It was further alleged that the respondent No.2 was also taken to Hyderabad before the Court of a Civil Judge, there also under the influence of some intoxicating substance and she was made to withdraw the cases against her sister and others. Later on when the respondent No.2 came to know that all the accused persons had taken the property documents from her and got the said properties transferred in their names and she was left with nothing, the respondent No.2 withdrew the SPA and all other documents, which were got executed by the accused persons from the respondent No.2 under the influence of intoxication.
5. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 filed a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against all the accused persons for the alleged offence committed under Sections 420/406/328/506/120-B IPC before the Court of ACMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
6. Consequently the learned MM-08 (SE) upon examination of the complaint, evidence adduced by the respondent No.2/complainant and the material placed on record was of the opinion that a prima facie case is made out against the accused and vide impugned order dated 26.03.2012 summoned the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 420/120-B IPC.
Hence the present petition.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner No.2-Inderjeet Kaur is the plaintiff in the Ex.1, i.e. compromise deed dated 26.02.2010, and in the present complaint Inderjeet Kaur is impleaded as accused No.3 and the respondent No.2-Tejinder Kaur Sahni who was the defendant No.1 is the complainant and rest have not been made as party as the dispute lies of the property itself. The settlement/compromise reached between the parties is dated 26.02.2010 before the Court. The SPA was executed on 15.02.2010 at Delhi.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that since the respondent No.2/complainant in person was present before the Court with her counsel, and affixed her signature on the compromise/settlement deed, to indicate that the compromise reached between the parties was voluntary and without any force, pressure or coercion and the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled and attained the finality and there is no question to wriggle out the said factum after that as there would not be any further situation to raise subsequent hypothetical questions and the dispute on whims and fancies.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that after passing of the said decree, the respondent No.2/complainant
