W.P.(CRL)/1143/2017 of K M DHOUNDIYAL & ANR Vs STATE & ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+W.P.(CRL) 1143/2017

K M DHOUNDIYAL & ANR..... PetitionersThrough:Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate with Mr.Pranay Raj Slungh & Mr. Nina Dogra, Advs.Through:Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate with Mr.Pranay Raj Slungh & Mr. Nina Dogra, Advs.

versus

STATE & ANR..... Respondents

Through:Mr. R.S. Kundu, ASC (Crl.) with SI VivekMalik, PS Vasant Kunj, South.Mr. Manish Sangwan, Adv. for R-2.Malik, PS Vasant Kunj, South.Mr. Manish Sangwan, Adv. for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBAO R R%19.05.2017

1.M/s. Arnaya Hospitality Management Services Limited, of which thesecond respondent is the managing director, had been inducted as lessee bythe petitioners in their property described as premises bearing no.1768/1,Central School Road, behind Spinal Injury Hospital, Vasant Kunj, NewDelhi by lease deed dated 1.10.2013. It is stated that the lessee made certainimprovements in the said premises by arranging fittings and fixtures andthereafter set up restaurant business. Dispute arose between the parties,inter alia, for non payment of rent.The dispute was taken to arbitralproceedings amongst others by OMP No.100/2015 and arbitration petitionno.141/2015. It appears the arbitrator was appointed and certain directionsunder Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 came to beissued binding the lessee with the liability to pay the arrears of rental and forrental for the subsequent period.

2.There was breach in compliance with the abovesaid directions whichled to contempt petition, it being CCP (Civil) No.598/2016 being instituted.W.P.(CRL) 1143/2017Page 1 of 3

It is during the pendency of the said contempt proceedings that the lesseethrough the second respondent lodged complaint with Police StationVasant Kunj, South on 28.10.2016 alleging offences punishable underSections 420/468/471/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) havingcommitted by the petitioners, on which the FIR No.686/2016, under Sections420/468/471/34 IPC was registered in Police Station Vasant Kunj, South.

3.UponbeingreferredtotheDelhiHighCourtMediation&Conciliation Centre, during the pendency of the contempt case, by orderdated 24.03.2017, the parties have resolved the dispute amicably by enteringinto settlement agreement dated 31.03.2017.It is on that basis that thepetitioners, invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India readwith Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) havecome up to this court praying for the proceedings arising out of the abovementioned FIR to be quashed.

4.The matter was heard for some time on 20.04.2017 and 28.04.2017.The petitioners thereafter had come up with application (Crl.M.A.6999/2017and 7000/2017) praying for placing on record additional facts and documentswith request for exemption from filing original documents. The exemptionstands granted and the documents and additional facts are taken on board.

5.The respondents have appeared on their own on the basis of advancecopies.The first respondent/State is represented by Additional StandingCounsel Mr. R.S. Kundu, Advocate. He has submitted status reportprepared and signed by Station House Officer of Police Station Vasant Kunj,South. The second respondent is present in person accompanied by hiscounsel, who has submitted an affidavit sworn by the second respondentaffirming the facts about the settlement agreement dated 31.03.2017 and hisno objection to the prayer made in the petition at hand.W.P.(CRL) 1143/2017Page 2 of 3

6.It is noted that the allegations in the FIR respecting offence underSection 468 IPC primarily concern some interpolation in the copy of thelease deed dated 01.10.2013 which had been submitted in the course of civillitigation before the court.The main allegations, however, related to theoffence of cheating on the basis of alleged misrepresentation. Be that as itmay, by way of settlement agreement, the parties have decided to bury thehatchet.

7.It is confirmed by the petitioners, as indeed by the second respondentthrough counsel, that the vacant and peaceful possession of the demisedpremises has already been handed over by the lessee unto the petitioner (thelessor) and that the dispute as to the claim of the lessor for the arrears of renttill the date handing over of the possession and of the the second respondent(lessess) as to its claim for the value of the fittings and fixtures which havebeen left behind in the demised premises has already been taken care of, theclaim of both sides having been fully and finally satisfied.

8.Against the above backdrop, the dispute between being essentiallycivil in nature and personal to the parties, there being no likelihood of thecriminalactionleadingtoconviction,continuanceofthecriminalproceedings thus being in the nature of abuse of process of the court, theprayer in the petition deserves to be granted. {Gian Singh vs. State of Punjaband Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303}.

9.In the facts and circumstances, FIR No.686/2016, under Sections420/468/471/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj, South and theproceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

10.The petition is disposed of accordingly.

R.K.GAUBA, J.

MAY 19, 2017/vk