Satish Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Sharma

1. The present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.251/2012 lodged under Sections 469/471/420/406/506/120B IPG and FIR No.94/2012 lodged under Sections 323/341/354/34 IPG, both registered at Police Station: jvjansarovar Park.

2. Gounsel for the petitioners states that the petitioner No.l is the elder brother of the respondent No.l, Yogesh Kumar Sharma and the petitioner No.2, Smt. Meena Sharma is the wife of petitioner No.l and the respondent No.2, Nisha Sharma is the wife of the respondent No.l. He submits that on account of a civil dispute between the parties relating to a plot of land measuring 100 square yards bearing No.C-15, in Khasra No.173, New Modern Shahdara, Delhi, an altercation had taken place between them and pursuant thereto, FIR No.251/2012 was lodged by the respondent No.l stating inter alia that the petitioners were trying to illegally dispossess him and they had been extending threat to him and his family members. W.P.(CRL) 1360/2013 &W.P.(CRL) 1361/2013 Page 2of 5 I I

3. Counsel for the petitioners further states that while FIR No.251/2012 was filed by the respondent No.l on 10.12.2012, prior thereto, the respondent No.2 (wife of the respondent No.l) had filed FIR No.94/2012 under Sections 323/341/354/34 IPG at Police Station. Mansarovar Park, levelling allegations of assault against Satish Kumar Sharma, petitioner No.l, his younger brother, Rajesh Sharma, brother-in-law, Dev Dutt Sharma and the petitioner No.l's son, Nitin Sharma. It is submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIRs, the parties had arrived at a negotiated settlement before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Court in a civil suit instituted by Mr.Yogesh Kumar Sharma on 15.02.2013 and after the suit was decreed in terms of the settlement on 16.04.2013, the present petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of both the FIRs.

4. Counsel for the petitioners states that as per the settlement arrived at between the parties which has been placed on record, the petitioner No.l, Shri Satish Kumar Sharma had agreed to pay a sum of ?22,50,000/- to the respondent No.l and after receiving the settled amount, the respondent No.l would not be left with any right, title or interest in the disputed premises. It is stated that out of the aforesaid W.P.(CRL) 1360/2013 &W.P.(CRL) 1361/2013 Page 3of 5 amount, a sum of ?2,50,000/- had already been received by the respondent No.l when the petitioners had applied for bail and the balance sum of ?20 lacs is payable today. He hands over a draft for ?19 lacs drawn in favour of the respondent No.l alongwith asum of ?1 lac brought in cash to the respondent No.l through counsel.

5. The respondent No.l and 2 are present in Court and are identified by the Investigating Officer. They confirm the fact that they have received the entire agreed sum of ?22,50,000/- from the petitioners in terms of the settlement arrived at amongst them and recorded before the Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Court on 15.02.2013. They further state that as they have arrived at a settlement with the petitioners, who are related to them, they have no objection to the FIRs being quashed alongwith all the proceedings arising therefrom.

6. Counsels for the State submit that the investigation is complete in FIR No.94/2012, whereas the same is pending in respect of FIR No.251/2012. They further state that as the parties claim that they are related to each other and they have arrived at a negotiated settlement in respect of the disputed property, the State has no objection to the present petitions being allowed. W.P.(CRL) 1360/2013 &W.P.(CRL) 1361/2013 Page 4of 5

7. In view of the fact that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement of their own free will and volition and without any undue influence or coercion from any quarters, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by proceeding further with the aforesaid FIRs and the proceedings arising therefrom.

7. Accordingly, the prayer made in the petitions is allowed. FIRs No.94/2012 and 251/2012 lodged with Police Station: Mansarovar Park and all the proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. HIMA KOHLI, J SEPTEMBER 02, 2013 rkb/sk.P.(CRL) 1360/2013 &W.P.(CRL) 1361/2013 Page 5of 5 W