1

NON-REPORTABLE

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.234 OF 2019            (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.  10791 of 2015)

Satish Sharma & Anr. Appellant(s)

     VS.

State (NCT OF Delhi) & Ors. Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Maheshwari, J

Leave granted.

2. The appellants herein, said to be the injured persons

in  the  incident  in  question,  that  had  taken  place  on

05.12.2010  at  C-17,  New  West  Avenue,  Club  Road,

Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi and formed the subject

matter  of  FIR  No.  382  of  2010 registered  with  Punjabi

Bagh  Police  Station,  New  Delhi  for  offences  under

Sections 323, 324, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code

('IPC'),  have  questioned the  order  dated  06.08.2015  in

Crl.  M.C.  No.  3673 of  2013 and Crl.  M.A.  No.  13346 of

2

2013 whereby, the High Court of  Delhi,  while allowing

the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure

Code ('Cr.P.C.'),  has quashed the proceedings under the

said  FIR  on  being  satisfied  that  the  dispute  had

essentially  been the one between landlord and tenant,

which  stood  cleared/settled  in  terms  of  the  Deed  of

Compromise executed by the parties.

3.   It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the

High Court has been in error in quashing the proceedings

under  the  FIR  aforesaid   merely  on  the  basis  of  the

statement of one of the injured persons whereas, there

were three injured persons in the incident, two of them

being the appellants, who were not made parties before

the High Court and were not heard in the matter.

4. The submissions made on behalf of the appellants

are countered by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who were

the accused persons and were the petitioners before the

High  Court.  It  is  submitted  that  during  the  course  of

investigation  in  the  FIR  aforesaid,  the  Deed  of

Compromise  dated  30.05.2011  was  executed  between

the parties, which was duly signed, by the informant-Ms.

3

Jyoti  Sharma (respondent  No.  4  herein)  as  also  by  the

appellants-Shri Satish Sharma and Shri Deepak Bhardwaj

on one hand; and by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as also

by one Shri Manish Talreja and another Shri Ashok Kumar

on the other. It is further asserted that in fact, the deed

was drafted by the appellant No. 2-Shri Deepak Bhardwaj,

one of the alleged injured person; and the complainants

received  a  sum  of  Rs.  25  lakhs  from  the  contesting

respondents,  the  accused  in  the  said  FIR.  It  is  also

submitted that the appellant No. 2-Shri Deepak Bhardwarj

was indeed present before the High Court at the time of

passing of the impugned order dated 06.08.2015 and his

appearance  is  distinctly  marked  as  counsel  for  the

respondent  No.  2  before  the  High  Court  (who  is

respondent No. 4 herein). It is contended that the parties

had consciously compromised the matter and the present

appeal is merely an attempt to get the matter reopened

on the  baseless premise and a flimsy ground that all the

alleged injured persons were not heard in the High Court.  

5.    Having  heard  learned counsel  for  the  parties  and

having  perused  the  material  placed  on  record,  we  are

4

unable  to  find  even  a  wee  bit  of  reason  to  consider

interference in this matter.  

6. Perusal of the record makes it clear that in relation

to  the  incident  that  had  taken  place  on  05.12.2010,

written information leading to the said FIR was filed by

the  respondent  No.  4  Ms.  Jyoti  Sharma  only  on

24.12.2010. The respondent No. 4 alleged in the written

information,  inter  alia,  that  the  respondent  No.  3  Shri

Sushil  Malhotra,  the  respondent  No.  2  Ms.  Sunita

Malhotra,  the son of  respondent No.  3,  another  person

Shri  Ashok  Kumar,  and  5-6  goonda-type  persons,  who

were armed with weapons, came to her house at C-17,

New West Avenue, Club Road, Punjabi Bagh (West), New

Delhi;  that the respondent No. 3 slapped the informant

and  his  son  pressed  her  neck  whereupon  her  brother

(appellant  No.  1)  came  for  the  rescue  but  the  son  of

respondent No. 2 and the said Shri Ashok Kumar threw

him (appellant No. 1) on the ground and assaulted him

with  leg  blows;  that  at  the  same  time,  Shri  Deepak

Bhardwaj (appellant No. 2), nephew of the informant, also

came to  their  rescue but  the  son of  respondent  No.  3

5

assaulted him with a borer, which pierced into his left leg;

and that the other persons also surrounded the appellant

No.  2  and  assaulted  him  and  snatched  away  his  gold

chain. It was also alleged that the respondent No. 2 pulled

the hair of the informant and hurled filthy abuses.  

7. It  appears  that  the  investigation  in  this  matter

remained  pending  for  a  long  length  of  time  but,

ultimately,  the  parties  sat  together  and  executed  the

Deed of Compromise dated 30.05.2011. The contents of

the  said  Deed  of  Compromise  disclose  the  relevant

background aspect of the matter that the ground floor of

the property in question at C-17, New West Avenue, Club

Road,  Punjabi  Bagh  (West),  New  Delhi  had  been

purchased  by  respondent  No.  2  Ms.  Sunita  Malhotra

whereas,  its  first  floor  and  second  floor  had  been

purchased by her daughter Ms. Ashita Talaeja, wife of Shri

Manish  Talreja;  and  the  husband  of  the  informant

remained in occupation of the rear portion of first floor, in

the capacity as tenant only. It is further made out from

the said deed that on 05.12.2010, during the renovation

work at the ground floor of the property in question, there

6

had been heated exchanges between the families of the

informant  (respondent  No.  4)  on  one  hand  and

respondent No. 2 on the other; and the incident led to the

filing  of  the  FIR  by  respondent  No.  4  and  a  counter

complaint by the respondent No. 3,  which was pending

before  the  Magistrate.  After  having  recorded  the

background  aspects,  the  parties  categorically  stated  in

the Deed of Compromise thus:-  

"2.  That  with  the  intervention  of  the  common friends the said dispute between  both parties has been settled amicably. Both the parties are ready to compound the said FIR No.  382 of  2010 P.S. Punjabi Bagh and as well as the complaint case titled Sushil Malhotra Versus Bharat Sharma and others pending before Sh. Lavleen MM Tis Hazari Court and move applications in this regard. 3.  That  the both  parties  have entered into  this compromise  deed  voluntary  and  without  any pressure or coarsen. (sic)”

8. On the matter being taken up by the High Court on

the petition filed by the accused persons for quashing the

proceedings  in  the  FIR  aforesaid,  it  was  submitted  ad

idem on  behalf  of  the  accused  persons  as  also  the

informant  that  the  matter  was  settled  in  compromise

between the parties and that a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs was

7

also paid by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by way of Pay

Order bearing No. 407575  dated 06.08.2015. The High

Court cautiously took note of  the guiding principles for

exercise  of  power  under  Section  482  Cr.  P.C.  while

dealing  with  the  proposition  of  settlement  and  for

quashing the criminal proceedings  with reference to  the

decisions  of  this  Court  in  Gian  Singh  vs.  State  of

Punjab  & Anr :  2012  (10)  SCC 303 and  Narinder

Singh Vs.  State of Punjab & Anr : 2014(6) SCC 466.

Thereafter, in the totality of the facts and circumstances

of the case and in view of the affidavit of informant, the

High Court  formed the opinion that  the landlord-tenant

dispute  between  the  parties  stood  cleared/settled  in

terms of the said Deed of Compromise and continuance

of the proceedings arising out of the said FIR would be an

exercise in futility.  

9. We are unable to find any error or illegality in the

approach of the High Court in this case. As noticed, the

FIR in question itself was lodged after 19 days from the

date  of  alleged  incident.  The  accused  party  had  also

attempted to maintain a cross-case by filing a complaint

8

before  the Magistrate.  The Deed of  Compromise  dated

30.05.2011 had apparently been signed by the informant

(respondent  No.  4)  as  also  the  present  appellants,  the

alleged  injured  persons.  The  respondent  No.  4  had

affirmed the terms of compromise before the High Court

by filing her affidavit and it was, inter alia, given out that

a sum of Rs.25 Lakhs was paid by the accused persons to

the complainants.  Though the  appellants  seek to  state

the  grievance  about  want  of  notice  to  them  while

quashing the proceeding in the FIR, for they being also

the injured persons but then, interestingly, the appellant

No. 2 is shown to have remained present before the High

Court as counsel for the informant, who was respondent

No.  2  before  the  High  Court.  Moreover,  even  in  the

petition filed before this Court, the appellants have not

disputed  the  factum  of  execution  of  the  Deed  of

Compromise dated 30.05.2011.

10. In the cumulative effect of what has been noticed

and observed hereinabove, we are satisfied that the High

Court  has  rightly  found  no  reason  that  the  matter  be

allowed to be dragged further and has rightly quashed

9

the proceedings under the said FIR in proper exercise of

its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

11. In view of the above,  no case for interference in this

matter at the instance of the appellants is made out. This

appeal, therefore, stands dismissed.

   ………………………………..J.     (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)

          ...............................................J.

(DINESH MAHESHWARI)      1 New Delhi,  Dated: 8th February, 2019