Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of FIR in Landlord-Tenant Dispute: Satish Sharma vs. State (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 8th February 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 123
Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Can a criminal case arising from a property dispute be quashed if the parties reach a compromise? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a landlord-tenant dispute that escalated into a criminal matter. The Court upheld the decision of the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings, finding that the dispute was primarily civil in nature and had been settled by a compromise between the parties. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari, with Justice Dinesh Maheshwari authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on December 5, 2010, at a property in Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. The dispute arose between a landlord and tenant, escalating into a physical altercation. An FIR (First Information Report) was filed on December 24, 2010, by Ms. Jyoti Sharma (Respondent No. 4), alleging that she and her family were assaulted by the landlord’s family and their associates. The injured included Ms. Jyoti Sharma, her brother (Appellant No. 1), and her nephew (Appellant No. 2). The accused were Ms. Sunita Malhotra (Respondent No. 2), her husband Mr. Sushil Malhotra (Respondent No. 3), their son, and others. The appellants, Satish Sharma and Deepak Bhardwaj, were the injured parties who later contested the quashing of the FIR.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Delhi, in response to a petition filed by the accused, quashed the FIR under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The High Court was satisfied that the dispute was primarily a landlord-tenant issue that had been resolved through a Deed of Compromise. The High Court noted that a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs was paid by the accused to the complainants as part of the settlement. The appellants, who were also injured parties in the incident, challenged the High Court’s decision, arguing that they were not heard before the FIR was quashed.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): This section grants the High Court inherent powers to make orders necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

The Court also referred to previous decisions regarding the use of Section 482 Cr.P.C. in cases involving settlements, particularly:

• Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr [2012 (10) SCC 303]
• Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr [2014(6) SCC 466]

These cases established guidelines for High Courts to quash criminal proceedings when a compromise has been reached, especially in cases that are primarily civil in nature.

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions:

• The appellants argued that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR based on the statement of only one injured person (Ms. Jyoti Sharma), while there were three injured persons, including the two appellants, who were not heard by the High Court.
• They contended that their rights as injured parties were violated because they were not formally made parties to the proceedings before the High Court.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The respondents argued that a Deed of Compromise dated May 30, 2011, had been executed between all parties, including the appellants and the informant, Ms. Jyoti Sharma.
• They submitted that the compromise was voluntary and without any pressure. The deed was drafted by the Appellant No. 2, Shri Deepak Bhardwaj.
• They also stated that a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs was paid to the complainants as part of the settlement.
• They highlighted that Appellant No. 2, Shri Deepak Bhardwaj, was present before the High Court as counsel for the respondent No. 4 (the informant) during the proceedings.
• They argued that the present appeal was merely an attempt to reopen a settled matter on baseless grounds.

Innovativeness of the argument: The respondents innovatively pointed out that one of the appellants was present before the High Court as a counsel for the informant, which was a strong point in favour of the respondents.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues but addressed the following points:

• Whether the High Court was correct in quashing the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on the compromise between the parties.
• Whether the appellants, as injured parties, were entitled to be heard before the FIR was quashed.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to quash the FIR. The Court found no reason to interfere, noting that:

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Court relied on Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr [2012 (10) SCC 303] to reiterate the principles for quashing criminal proceedings based on compromise.
• The Court also relied on Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr [2014(6) SCC 466] to emphasize the scope of the High Court’s power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in such matters.
• The Court used Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to highlight the inherent powers of the High Court to quash proceedings to secure the ends of justice.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the dispute originated from a landlord-tenant issue, which had been resolved through a compromise. The Court emphasized that the Deed of Compromise was executed by all parties, including the appellants, and that a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs was paid to the complainants. The Court also noted that one of the appellants was present before the High Court as counsel for the informant, indicating that all parties were aware of the settlement. The Court was of the view that continuing the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility.

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered the fact that the dispute was primarily a civil matter arising from a landlord-tenant relationship. The Court noted that the parties had entered into a compromise, and a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs was paid to the complainants. The Court also took into account that one of the appellants was present before the High Court as counsel for the informant, indicating that all parties were aware of the settlement. Based on these facts, the Supreme Court concluded that continuing the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility and upheld the High Court’s decision to quash the FIR.

The Court stated:

“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 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.”

“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 the proceedings under the said FIR in proper exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.”

There were no minority opinions in this case, as the judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench and both judges concurred.

Key Takeaways

• Criminal proceedings arising from civil disputes, such as landlord-tenant issues, can be quashed if the parties reach a compromise.
• High Courts have inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the process and secure the ends of justice.
• Compromises must be genuine, voluntary, and entered into by all parties involved.
• The presence of one of the appellants as a counsel for the informant before the High Court was a significant factor in the Supreme Court’s decision.

Directions

No specific directions were issued by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that criminal proceedings arising from civil disputes can be quashed if the parties reach a genuine compromise, and the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to do so. This case reinforces the existing legal position that encourages the settlement of disputes and prevents the misuse of criminal proceedings for resolving civil matters. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Satish Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reaffirms the principle that criminal proceedings stemming from civil disputes can be quashed when a genuine compromise is reached between the parties. The Court emphasized the importance of settlement in such cases and upheld the High Court’s decision to quash the FIR, finding no reason to interfere with the High Court’s judicious exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.