Full Text
Translation output
$-6&7(common order)
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C.1348/2016 and Crl.M.A.5838/2016
MUNEESH SHANKAR CHOPRA& ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr.Pawan K.Bahl,Advocate with Petitioners in person.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C.1348/2016 and Crl.M.A.5838/2016
MUNEESH SHANKAR CHOPRA& ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr.Pawan K.Bahl,Advocate with Petitioners in person.
VERSUS
THE STATE (NOT OFDELHI)& ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr.Kewal Singh Ahuja,APP for the State with AST Anand Pal,PS Subzi
Mandi& SI Kamaljeet Singh,PS Kashmere Gate.
Mr.Sanjeev Soni,Adv.for R-2 with R-2 in person.
Through: Mr.Kewal Singh Ahuja,APP for the State with AST Anand Pal,PS Subzi
Mandi& SI Kamaljeet Singh,PS Kashmere Gate.
Mr.Sanjeev Soni,Adv.for R-2 with R-2 in person.
CRL.M.C.1387/2016 and Crl.M.A.6426/2016
RAMESH ARYA Petitioner-
Through: Mr.Sanjeev Soni,Advocate with Petitioner in person.
RAMESH ARYA Petitioner-
Through: Mr.Sanjeev Soni,Advocate with Petitioner in person.
VERSUS
THE STATE(NOT OF DELHI)& ANR Respondents
Through: Mr.Kewal Singh Ahuja,APP forthe State with ASI Anand Pal,PS Subzi
Mandi& SI Kamaljeet Singh,PS Kashmere Gate.
Mr.Pawan K.Bahl,Advocate for R-2 & R-3 with R-2& R-3 in person.
Through: Mr.Kewal Singh Ahuja,APP forthe State with ASI Anand Pal,PS Subzi
Mandi& SI Kamaljeet Singh,PS Kashmere Gate.
Mr.Pawan K.Bahl,Advocate for R-2 & R-3 with R-2& R-3 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
06.02.2019 Both these petitions were presented one afterthe otherinvoking
CRL.M.C. 1348/2016etc. Page 1 of6 2019:DHC:7570 inherent power andjurisdiction ofthis court under Section 482 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)to seek quashing ofthe proceedings in the criminal case arising out ofthe two different reports to the police,the parties involved herein being common.
The first captioned petition relates to first information report(FIR)
No.238/2011 ofPolice Station Subzi Mandi which was lodged by Ramesh
Arya,the second respondent ofthe said case,allegations having been made against Muneesh Shankar Chopra and Vikram Chopra,the petitioners in the said matter,their father L.D.Chopra, who was also described as accomplice having since passed away.The offences alleged in the said FIRNo.238/2011 are punishable under Sections 193/420/468/471/120-B/34 of the Indian
Penal Code,1860(IPC).
On the other hand, the second captioned petition relates to FIR
No.261/2008 ofPolice Station Kashmere Gate registered at the instance of said L.D. Chopra(since deceased)he being survived by his sons Muneesh
Shankar Chopra and Vila-am Chopra,who are second and third respondents in the said Crl.M.C.1387/2016.The allegations in the said FIR No.261/2008 are directed againstRamesh Arya,petitioner in Crl.M.C.1387/2016 accusing him for commission of offence punishable under sections
420/468/465/471/199/200 IPC.
It appearsfrom the material on record,and the pleadings ofthe parties in the two petitions, that the dispute revolves around the right, title and interest in property No.219,Indira Vihar,Kinghway Camp,Delhi-110 009.
The said property was statedly purchased in the name ofKamla Arya, wife ofLate Shri S.P.Arya,she being the mother ofRamesh Arya,she having
CRL.M.C. 1348/2016etc. Page 2of6 [b I since passed away. Late Shri L.D. Chopra,the father ofMuneesh Shankar
Chopra and Vikram Chopra is described as real brother ofMrs.Kamla Arya.
It appears that after the death ofKamla Arya,a dispute had arisen.Late Shri
L.D. Chopra and his sons having claimed that the property was purchased benami in the name of Kamla Arya, the consideration paid for such acquisition having been sourced from the funds ofLate Shri L.D.Chopra. It appears that reliance was placed on a registered Will dated 03.12.1991 left behind by Kamla Arya,on the basis ofwhich Muneesh Shankar Chopra and
Vilaam Chopra claimed bequest in the subject property. Ramesh Arya, on the other hand,questioned the validity and genuineness ofthe said will.
The above mentioned dispute between the parties led to three civil suits being filed, they including civil suit No.396/2015 (old No.369/2001) filed by Ramesh Arya; civil suit No.395/2015(old No.320/2003)also filed by Ramesh Arya;and counter claim No.396/2015(old No.397/2015)in the first captioned suit filed by Muneesh Shankar Chopra and Vikram Chopra.
The first suit ofRamesh Arya was for reliefofpermanent injunction,Delhi
Development Authority(DDA)also being a party, in the context of claim for mutation, some show cause notice having been issued by the said authority, the counter claim of the Muneesh Shankar Chopra and Vikram
Chopra being for the reliefofdeclaration. The other civil suit No.395/2015 was filed by Ramesh Arya for the relief of possession, damages and permanentinjunction.
Against the above backdrop of the said civil litigation, both parties lodged FIRs against each other, the first FIR No.261/2008 having been registered atthe instance ofL.D.Chopra againstRamesh Aiya,whilethe
CRL.M.C. 1348/2016etc. Page 3of6 other FIR No.238/2011 was registered at the instance of Ramesh Arya againstthe opposite party.
As per the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor the investigation into both the said FlRs was completed and reports(charge sheets)under Section 173 Cr.P.C. were submitted in due course,the charges pressed in the first case being punishable for offences under Sections
420/120-B IPC, while in the other case the prosecution has been sought for offence punishable under Sections 428/468/471/199/200 IPC. He, at the same time,fairly conceded that no compliant under Section 195 Cr.P.C. has been filed concerning the offence under Sections 199/200 IPC. Both cases concededly are pending before the trial court.
Be that as it may,againstthe above backdrop the parties entered into a family settlement agreement dated 15.02.2016. In terms of the said settlement, they have agreed to share the subject property in parts, the ground floor having gone to the share of Muneesh Shankar Chopra along with roof rights, the first and second floor having gone to the share of
Ramesh Arya and third floor having fallen to the share of Vikram Chopra.
By the same settlement agreement, the parties also agreed to bury the hatchet and seek quashing ofthe proceedings arising out ofthe two FlRs, they having been earlier lodged due to then pending dispute, the prayer being actuated by their intention to buy peace.
On the basis of above mentioned settlement, the parties had earlier approached the court ofAdditional District Judge(ADJ)where all the three said suits were pending.A copy ofthejudgment dated 27.02.2016 passed by the said court has been placed on record,it indicating that on the basis of
CRL.M.C. 1348/2016 etc. Page 4of6 comproniise,ajoint application was presented under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(CPC)read with Section 151 CPC,and upon consideration of the same a compromise decree was granted, the dispute having been treated as settled/compromised in terms ofthe family settlement(Ex.Cl)made part ofthe decree.
It is also shown by documents filed in the registry during the course ofthe day,the same having been called for,that the parties,in terms ofthe said family settlement had approached the sub-registrar of District North-
West Delhi and have got all the relevant documents duly registered on 12^^
May,2016,the said documents inclusive ofthejudgment ofthe civil court, disposing of the said three suits, the decree, as also family settlement agreement.
It is clearfrom the above narration thatthe dispute between the parties is essentially private and civil in nature,the criminal cases registered being an off-shoot thereof. Following the principles laid down by the Supreme
Court,inter alia, in Gian Singh vs. State ofPunjab andAnr.(2012)10SCC
303;NarinderSingh v. State ofPunjab,(2014)6 SCC 466;and Parbatbhai
Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of
GujaratandAnother,(2017)9SCC641,the prayersin boththe petitions are granted.
The proceedings in the criminal case arising out ofFIR No.238/2011, under Sections 193/420/468/471/120-B/34 IPC of Police Station Subzi
Mandi and FIR No.261/2008,under Sections 419/420IPC ofPolice Station
Kahsmere Gate againstthe petitioners in these connected matters are hereby quashed.
CRL.M.C.1348/2016etc. Page5of6 The petitions and the applications filed therewith are disposed of in above terms.
GA A
FEBRUARY 06,2019 vk
06.02.2019 Both these petitions were presented one afterthe otherinvoking
CRL.M.C. 1348/2016etc. Page 1 of6 2019:DHC:7570 inherent power andjurisdiction ofthis court under Section 482 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)to seek quashing ofthe proceedings in the criminal case arising out ofthe two different reports to the police,the parties involved herein being common.
The first captioned petition relates to first information report(FIR)
No.238/2011 ofPolice Station Subzi Mandi which was lodged by Ramesh
Arya,the second respondent ofthe said case,allegations having been made against Muneesh Shankar Chopra and Vikram Chopra,the petitioners in the said matter,their father L.D.Chopra, who was also described as accomplice having since passed away.The offences alleged in the said FIRNo.238/2011 are punishable under Sections 193/420/468/471/120-B/34 of the Indian
Penal Code,1860(IPC).
On the other hand, the second captioned petition relates to FIR
No.261/2008 ofPolice Station Kashmere Gate registered at the instance of said L.D. Chopra(since deceased)he being survived by his sons Muneesh
Shankar Chopra and Vila-am Chopra,who are second and third respondents in the said Crl.M.C.1387/2016.The allegations in the said FIR No.261/2008 are directed againstRamesh Arya,petitioner in Crl.M.C.1387/2016 accusing him for commission of offence punishable under sections
420/468/465/471/199/200 IPC.
It appearsfrom the material on record,and the pleadings ofthe parties in the two petitions, that the dispute revolves around the right, title and interest in property No.219,Indira Vihar,Kinghway Camp,Delhi-110 009.
The said property was statedly purchased in the name ofKamla Arya, wife ofLate Shri S.P.Arya,she being the mother ofRamesh Arya,she having
CRL.M.C. 1348/2016etc. Page 2of6 [b I since passed away. Late Shri L.D. Chopra,the father ofMuneesh Shankar
Chopra and Vikram Chopra is described as real brother ofMrs.Kamla Arya.
It appears that after the death ofKamla Arya,a dispute had arisen.Late Shri
L.D. Chopra and his sons having claimed that the property was purchased benami in the name of Kamla Arya, the consideration paid for such acquisition having been sourced from the funds ofLate Shri L.D.Chopra. It appears that reliance was placed on a registered Will dated 03.12.1991 left behind by Kamla Arya,on the basis ofwhich Muneesh Shankar Chopra and
Vilaam Chopra claimed bequest in the subject property. Ramesh Arya, on the other hand,questioned the validity and genuineness ofthe said will.
The above mentioned dispute between the parties led to three civil suits being filed, they including civil suit No.396/2015 (old No.369/2001) filed by Ramesh Arya; civil suit No.395/2015(old No.320/2003)also filed by Ramesh Arya;and counter claim No.396/2015(old No.397/2015)in the first captioned suit filed by Muneesh Shankar Chopra and Vikram Chopra.
The first suit ofRamesh Arya was for reliefofpermanent injunction,Delhi
Development Authority(DDA)also being a party, in the context of claim for mutation, some show cause notice having been issued by the said authority, the counter claim of the Muneesh Shankar Chopra and Vikram
Chopra being for the reliefofdeclaration. The other civil suit No.395/2015 was filed by Ramesh Arya for the relief of possession, damages and permanentinjunction.
Against the above backdrop of the said civil litigation, both parties lodged FIRs against each other, the first FIR No.261/2008 having been registered atthe instance ofL.D.Chopra againstRamesh Aiya,whilethe
CRL.M.C. 1348/2016etc. Page 3of6 other FIR No.238/2011 was registered at the instance of Ramesh Arya againstthe opposite party.
As per the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor the investigation into both the said FlRs was completed and reports(charge sheets)under Section 173 Cr.P.C. were submitted in due course,the charges pressed in the first case being punishable for offences under Sections
420/120-B IPC, while in the other case the prosecution has been sought for offence punishable under Sections 428/468/471/199/200 IPC. He, at the same time,fairly conceded that no compliant under Section 195 Cr.P.C. has been filed concerning the offence under Sections 199/200 IPC. Both cases concededly are pending before the trial court.
Be that as it may,againstthe above backdrop the parties entered into a family settlement agreement dated 15.02.2016. In terms of the said settlement, they have agreed to share the subject property in parts, the ground floor having gone to the share of Muneesh Shankar Chopra along with roof rights, the first and second floor having gone to the share of
Ramesh Arya and third floor having fallen to the share of Vikram Chopra.
By the same settlement agreement, the parties also agreed to bury the hatchet and seek quashing ofthe proceedings arising out ofthe two FlRs, they having been earlier lodged due to then pending dispute, the prayer being actuated by their intention to buy peace.
On the basis of above mentioned settlement, the parties had earlier approached the court ofAdditional District Judge(ADJ)where all the three said suits were pending.A copy ofthejudgment dated 27.02.2016 passed by the said court has been placed on record,it indicating that on the basis of
CRL.M.C. 1348/2016 etc. Page 4of6 comproniise,ajoint application was presented under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(CPC)read with Section 151 CPC,and upon consideration of the same a compromise decree was granted, the dispute having been treated as settled/compromised in terms ofthe family settlement(Ex.Cl)made part ofthe decree.
It is also shown by documents filed in the registry during the course ofthe day,the same having been called for,that the parties,in terms ofthe said family settlement had approached the sub-registrar of District North-
West Delhi and have got all the relevant documents duly registered on 12^^
May,2016,the said documents inclusive ofthejudgment ofthe civil court, disposing of the said three suits, the decree, as also family settlement agreement.
It is clearfrom the above narration thatthe dispute between the parties is essentially private and civil in nature,the criminal cases registered being an off-shoot thereof. Following the principles laid down by the Supreme
Court,inter alia, in Gian Singh vs. State ofPunjab andAnr.(2012)10SCC
303;NarinderSingh v. State ofPunjab,(2014)6 SCC 466;and Parbatbhai
Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of
GujaratandAnother,(2017)9SCC641,the prayersin boththe petitions are granted.
The proceedings in the criminal case arising out ofFIR No.238/2011, under Sections 193/420/468/471/120-B/34 IPC of Police Station Subzi
Mandi and FIR No.261/2008,under Sections 419/420IPC ofPolice Station
Kahsmere Gate againstthe petitioners in these connected matters are hereby quashed.
CRL.M.C.1348/2016etc. Page5of6 The petitions and the applications filed therewith are disposed of in above terms.
GA A
FEBRUARY 06,2019 vk
CRL.M.C. 1348/2016 etc. Page 6of6
JUDGMENT