Full Text
Translation output
$-19-20 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 378/2011
SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION LTD. &ORS.
Petitioners
Through Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Keshav Mohan, Ms. Amrita Narayan, Adv.
CRL.M.C. 378/2011
SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION LTD. &ORS.
Petitioners
Through Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Keshav Mohan, Ms. Amrita Narayan, Adv.
VERSUS
STATE GOVT. OF NOT OF DELHI &ANR Respondents
Through Ms.Jasbir Kaur, APR for the State.
Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Adv. for R-2.
Through Ms.Jasbir Kaur, APR for the State.
Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Adv. for R-2.
CRL.M.C. 379/2011
SWAPNA ROY Petitioner
Through Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Keshav Mohan, Ms. Amrita Narayan, Adv.
SWAPNA ROY Petitioner
Through Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Keshav Mohan, Ms. Amrita Narayan, Adv.
VERSUS
STATE GOVT. OF NOT OF DELHI &ANR Respondents
Through Ms.Jasbir Kaur, APP for the State.
Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Adv. for R-2.
Through Ms.Jasbir Kaur, APP for the State.
Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
29.05.2015 Crl.
M.A. No.8669/2015 &CrI.
M.A. No.8670/2015
The above mentioned matters are listed in the categoiy of
Regular Matters". In the meanwhile the above mentioned
2015:DHC:11141 applications filed fok" disposal of the main petitions filed before this
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. r/w Article 227 of the Constitution ofIndia for quashing ofcomplaint case No.337/1/2009 under Sections
420/468/120-B/34/37 IPC and order dated 24^^ January, 2011 and all the proceedings thereunder against them.
The opposite party/ respondent No.2 had instituted a criminal complaint case No.337/1/2009 under Sections 420/468/120-B/34/37
IPC in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in which after recording the statements of the complainant Mr. Neeraj Pandey and his wife Mrs. Bewena Pandey, the Court had summoned the petitioners on 24'^ January, 2011 to face trial under Sections
420/468/120-B IPC. Due to the good gesture offered by the parties, the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement ofthe disputes and consequently, the petitioners and respondent No.2 have compromised the matter out of the Court on receiving the entire pending outstanding amount as full and final settlement between the parties to their complete satisfaction. The parties have withdrawn all the allegations and counter allegations made against each other. Both the parties do not wish to pursue the criminal/civil proceedings filed against each other and/or to lead any further evidence in the matter.
That the Supreme Court of India in its
29.05.2015 Crl.
M.A. No.8669/2015 &CrI.
M.A. No.8670/2015
The above mentioned matters are listed in the categoiy of
Regular Matters". In the meanwhile the above mentioned
2015:DHC:11141 applications filed fok" disposal of the main petitions filed before this
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. r/w Article 227 of the Constitution ofIndia for quashing ofcomplaint case No.337/1/2009 under Sections
420/468/120-B/34/37 IPC and order dated 24^^ January, 2011 and all the proceedings thereunder against them.
The opposite party/ respondent No.2 had instituted a criminal complaint case No.337/1/2009 under Sections 420/468/120-B/34/37
IPC in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in which after recording the statements of the complainant Mr. Neeraj Pandey and his wife Mrs. Bewena Pandey, the Court had summoned the petitioners on 24'^ January, 2011 to face trial under Sections
420/468/120-B IPC. Due to the good gesture offered by the parties, the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement ofthe disputes and consequently, the petitioners and respondent No.2 have compromised the matter out of the Court on receiving the entire pending outstanding amount as full and final settlement between the parties to their complete satisfaction. The parties have withdrawn all the allegations and counter allegations made against each other. Both the parties do not wish to pursue the criminal/civil proceedings filed against each other and/or to lead any further evidence in the matter.
That the Supreme Court of India in its
ORDER
cited as AIR 2008
SC 1969 and passed in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs State of
Punjab while enumerating the facts to be taken into consideration when the dispute is purely of a personal nature between two contesting parties and parties have compromised their disputes, the
Courts should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in r criminal proceedings since keeping the matter alive with no possibility of aresult in favour of the prosecution, is aluxury which the Courts grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigations.
In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ncirinder
Singh &Ors. vs State ofPunjab &anr" 2014(2) JIC 657 (SC), even in non-compoundable cases, the High Court should accept the compromise and quash the proceedings thereunder, pending in the subordinate Court, ifthe parties have come to compromise. The Apex
Court further held that in view ofthe compromise between the parties, there is a minimal chance ofthe witnesses coming forward in support ofthe prosecution case. The aforementioned observations were made by the Supreme Court in FIR No.121/147 registered under Section
307/324/323/34 IPC in which parties have entered into compromise.
The Apex Court, while concurring with the various previous verdicts ofthe Supreme Court, directed the High Court ofPunjab &Haryana to accept the compromise and quash the entire proceedings relating to the aforesaid case. This view is further retreated recently by three-
Judges Bench of the Apex Court in ''Yogendra Yadav & Ors vs State of Jharkhan & Ors'" 2015 (1) JIC 192(SC), observing that where parties have amicably settled their dispute though offences are not compoundable, the High Court can quash a criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C.
Heard learned counsel for both the parties. There is a force in the prayer made in the application that entire proceedings of complaint case No.337/1/2009 including the summoning order dated
24^^ January, 2011 is liable to be quashed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Ordered accordingly. The entire proceedings of complaint case No.337/1/2009 including the summoning order dated 24^^ January, 2011 is liable to be quashed on the basis ofthe compromise arrived atbetween the parties.
Both the petitions and pending applications are disposed off accordingly. Dasti to boththeparties.
MAY 29, 2015 ^ '\a f Mnmohan sing^^.
SC 1969 and passed in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs State of
Punjab while enumerating the facts to be taken into consideration when the dispute is purely of a personal nature between two contesting parties and parties have compromised their disputes, the
Courts should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in r criminal proceedings since keeping the matter alive with no possibility of aresult in favour of the prosecution, is aluxury which the Courts grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigations.
In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ncirinder
Singh &Ors. vs State ofPunjab &anr" 2014(2) JIC 657 (SC), even in non-compoundable cases, the High Court should accept the compromise and quash the proceedings thereunder, pending in the subordinate Court, ifthe parties have come to compromise. The Apex
Court further held that in view ofthe compromise between the parties, there is a minimal chance ofthe witnesses coming forward in support ofthe prosecution case. The aforementioned observations were made by the Supreme Court in FIR No.121/147 registered under Section
307/324/323/34 IPC in which parties have entered into compromise.
The Apex Court, while concurring with the various previous verdicts ofthe Supreme Court, directed the High Court ofPunjab &Haryana to accept the compromise and quash the entire proceedings relating to the aforesaid case. This view is further retreated recently by three-
Judges Bench of the Apex Court in ''Yogendra Yadav & Ors vs State of Jharkhan & Ors'" 2015 (1) JIC 192(SC), observing that where parties have amicably settled their dispute though offences are not compoundable, the High Court can quash a criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C.
Heard learned counsel for both the parties. There is a force in the prayer made in the application that entire proceedings of complaint case No.337/1/2009 including the summoning order dated
24^^ January, 2011 is liable to be quashed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Ordered accordingly. The entire proceedings of complaint case No.337/1/2009 including the summoning order dated 24^^ January, 2011 is liable to be quashed on the basis ofthe compromise arrived atbetween the parties.
Both the petitions and pending applications are disposed off accordingly. Dasti to boththeparties.
MAY 29, 2015 ^ '\a f Mnmohan sing^^.