[ad_1]
Delhi High Court – Orders
Munni vs State Of Nctc Of Delhi on 2 July, 2025
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ TEST.CAS. 9/2022
MUNNI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Chandan Gupta, Adv.
versus
STATE OF NCTC OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Lalltaksh Joshi and Ms. Ananya
Sanjiv Saraogi, Advs. for R-
1/GNCTD
Mr. Harpreet Singh and Mr. Deepak
Arora, Adv. for R-2, R-3 and R-4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
ORDER
% 02.07.2025
I.A. 15049/2025 (under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking
condonation of 190 days delay in filing the present review petition)
REVIEW PET. 350/2025 (review petition under Section 114 along with
Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908
against the order dated 15.10.2024)
1. Mr. Chandan Gupta, Advocate enters appearance on behalf of the
Review Petitioner. He clarifies that he had not represented the Review
Petitioner at the hearing dated 15.10.2024. He states that Review Petitioner
was represented by Mr. Shoaib Khan, Ms. Sheeba Khan and Mr. A.K.
Ansari, Advocates on 15.10.2024.
1.1 He states that Petitioner has agreed to withdraw the present petition in
view of the Memorandum of Understanding (‘MoU’) dated 26.09.2024
executed between the parties. He states that however, Respondent Nos. 2
and 3 have not complied with the conditions of the MoU. He states that the
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not provided Petitioner with an affidavit for
TEST.CAS. 9/2022 Page 1 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 21:46:59
filing a consent quashing petition with respect to FIR No. 615/2022
registered at P.S. Malviya Nagar under Sections 417/467/468/471/120B/511
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate enters appearance on behalf of
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on advance service. He states that Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 remain ready and willing to have the FIR No. 615/2022
quashed and have in fact, vide notice dated 12.03.2025 called upon the
Petitioner to provide a copy of the quashing petition.
2.1. He states that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also called upon the Petitioner
to handover the possession of the immovable property i.e., B-48, Sarvodya
Enclave, New Delhi-110017. He states that in the said legal notice,
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also offered to pay Rs. 20 lakhs. He states that it is
the Petitioner herein who is resiling from the MoU.
3. After some arguments, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that he
and Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
will work out the modalities for quashing of the aforesaid FIR, handing over
of the possession and receipt of payment of Rs. 20 lakhs simultaneously. He
however requested that the matter be passed over so that he can take
instructions from Petitioner.
4. At second call, the Petitioner is personally present along with her son,
Mr. Shakir Ali. Mr. Shakir Ali confirmed that he was also present along
with the Petitioner on 15.10.2024 during the hearing. Mr. Shakir Ali stated
that he along with the Petitioner is a co-accused in FIR No. 615/2022 and is
aggrieved by the non-filing of the consent quashing petition.
5. At the second call, learned counsel for the Petitioner requested that
the proceedings be held in vernacular so that Petitioner and her son Mr.
TEST.CAS. 9/2022 Page 2 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 21:46:59
Shakir Ali can follow the proceedings.
6. Accordingly, the court proceedings were conducted in vernacular for
the benefit of the Petitioner and her son Mr. Shakir Ali.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner has
concerns that the aforesaid FIR should be quashed prior to the handover of
the possession of the immovable property; as the Petitioner is apprehensive
that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 will not cooperate in the quashing after the
possession has been received. He states that to work out these modalities
parties may be referred to mediation.
8. In response, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has opposed
the reference to mediation. He states that terms of settlement are duly
documented in the MoU and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 remain bound to
comply. He states that Petitioner can deposit the keys of the property before
this Court and the same may be released to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 after
the FIR has been quashed. He states that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are
unwilling to enhance the compensation amount and apprehend that the intent
of the mediation is to extract enhanced compensation.
9. This Court has perused the averments made in the review petition and
takes note that Mr. Shakir Ali, the son of the Petitioner was present along
with the Petitioner before this Court even on 15.10.2024.
10. The statement of the Petitioner regarding unconditional withdrawal of
this petition was recorded on 15.10.2024, after the Petitioner had fully
comprehended the same, as she was duly represented not only by her
lawyers but she was also accompanied with her son. Moreover, the
Petitioner had earlier on 26.09.2024 as well made a statement on oath before
the Local Commissioner (Mr. J.R. Aryan, District Judge Rtd.) as well to the
TEST.CAS. 9/2022 Page 3 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 21:46:59
effect that she wishes to withdraw the petition and that she had arrived at a
settlement with Respondents. Even on 26.09.2024, Mr. Shakir Ali had
accompanied the Petitioner. In these facts, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the averments of coercion set out in the review petition are
incorrect and without any merit. The strategy of changing a counsel to file
the review petition also shows that the averments of incomprehension of the
Petitioner are meritless as Mr. Shoaib Khan, the counsel who appeared for
her on 26.09.2024 and 15.10.2024 would have clarified that Petitioner fully
understood the effect of her statements and actions.
11. It appears that the Petitioner’s real concern is the simultaneous
quashing of the aforesaid FIR, payment of the compensation amount agreed
and the handover of the possession of the immovable property. However, to
address these concerns, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to maintain the
review petition which ex facie appears to be based on false averments and if
entertained would amount to abuse of process of law.
12. At this stage, after some arguments and after taking fresh instructions
from Petitioner and Mr. Shakir Ali, who is present in Court, learned counsel
for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner is willing to abide by the
mechanism that on the date when the consent quashing petition [filed for
quashing the aforesaid FIR] is allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court, the Petitioner will hand over the keys of the immovable property to
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before the Coordinate Bench of this Court itself.
12.1. He states that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 can hand over the cheque of
Rs. 20 lakhs along with bank interest at 7% w.e.f. 15.10.2024 till 31.07.2025
to the Petitioner before the Coordinate Bench of this Court.
13. Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
TEST.CAS. 9/2022 Page 4 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 21:46:59
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 states that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are willing to
cooperate with the Petitioner and Mr. Shakir Ali for the purpose quashing of
the FIR by filing the requisite affidavits and accepting the keys of the
immovable property before the Coordinate Bench of this Court.
13.1. He states that the payment of Rs. 20 lakhs with interest w.e.f.
15.10.2024 till 31.07.2025 vide a demand draft will be handed over to the
Petitioner before the Coordinate Bench of this Court.
13.2. Respondent No. 2 is personally present in Court.
14. The statement of the parties is taken on record and the parties are
bound down to the same.
15. Keeping in view the peculiar facts, it is directed that Mr. Harpreet
Singh, Advocate and Mr. Chandan Gupta, Advocate will make joint effort to
have the quashing petition vis-à-vis FIR No. 615/2022 filed and listed before
the Coordinate Bench of this Court, expeditiously within two (2) weeks.
16. In the peculiar facts of this case, the Registrar (Listing) Appellate Side
is directed to list the quashing petition expeditiously subject to the petition
being in order.
17. With the aforesaid directions, this review petition as well as I.A.
15049/2025 stands disposed of. It is clarified that this Court finds no ground
for recalling the order dated 15.10.2024.
18. To verify compliance of the statement made by the parties today, list
before the Court on 01.08.2025.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
JULY 2, 2025/msh/rhc/MG Click here to check corrigendum, if any
TEST.CAS. 9/2022 Page 5 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 21:46:59
[ad_2]
Source link