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 Signature Not Verified IPC , have questioned the order dated 06.08.2015 in Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2019.02.08 174303 IST Reason Crl.
4 herein as also by the appellants Shri Satish Sharma and Shri Deepak Bhardwaj on one hand and by the respondent Nos.
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.
2 on the other and the incident led to the filing of the FIR by respondent No.
The companytents 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 and 3, who were the accused persons and were the petitioners before the High Court.
25 lakhs was also paid by the respondent Nos.
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.
4 alleged in the written information, inter alia, that the respondent No.
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 had been heated exchanges between the families of the informant respondent No.
2 pulled the hair of the informant and hurled filthy abuses.
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.
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 companynsel for the respondent No.
After having recorded the background aspects, the parties categorically stated in the Deed of Compromise thus That with the intervention of the companymon friends the said dispute between both parties has been settled amicably.
3 slapped the informant and his son pressed her neck whereupon her brother appellant No.
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 number made parties before the High Court and were number heard in the matter.
4 on one hand and respondent No.
25 lakhs from the companytesting respondents, the accused in the said FIR.
3 Shri Sushil Malhotra, the respondent No.
2 Shri Deepak Bhardwaj, one of the alleged injured person and the companyplainants received a sum of Rs.
3, which was pending before the Magistrate.
4 had affirmed the terms of companypromise 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 companyplainants.
3 assaulted him with a borer, which pierced into his left leg and that the other persons also surrounded the appellant No.
It is further asserted that in fact, the deed was drafted by the appellant No.
4 as also the present appellants, the alleged injured persons.
It was also alleged that the respondent No.
It is companytended that the parties had companysciously companypromised 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 number heard in the High Court.
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.
Dinesh Maheshwari, J Leave granted.
It is also submitted that the appellant 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.
The accused party had also attempted to maintain a cross case by filing a companyplaint before the Magistrate.
The Deed of Compromise dated 30.05.2011 had apparently been signed by the informant respondent No.
M.A. No.
The respondent No.
2 and the said Shri Ashok Kumar threw him appellant No.
2 and 3 as also by one Shri Manish Talreja and another Shri Ashok Kumar on the other.
The respondent No.
2 Ms. Sunita Malhotra, the son of respondent No.
1 came for the rescue but the son of respondent No.
3673 of 2013 and Crl.
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.
M.C. No.
13346 of 2013 whereby, the High Court of Delhi, while allowing the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code Cr.
4 and a companynter companyplaint by the respondent No.
The submissions made on behalf of the appellants are companyntered by the respondent Nos.
