Delhi High Court - Orders
Jaipur Golden Chartiable Clinical ... vs State & Anr on 5 January, 2023
Author: Amit Sharma
Bench: Amit Sharma
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2476/2011, CRL.M.A. 155/2023 & 156/2023
JAIPUR GOLDEN CHARTIABLE CLINICAL LABORATORY
TRUST & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Narendra Mann, Mr.
Shailesh Jha, Mr. Deepal Goel, Mr.
Ashutosh Prakash, Advocates
alongwith Petitioners no. 3, 4, 5, 6 &
8 in-person.
Petitioners no. 2 & 7 (through VC)
Versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Tushar Pahwa, Mr. Gaurav
Pahwa, Mr. Aman Jain, Advocates for
R-2 alongwith R-2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
ORDER
% 05.01.2023 Mr. Ashutosh Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has given his no objection to the petitioner for engaging a new counsel and requests that he be discharged from the matter. Accordingly, he is discharged from appearing in the present matter.
The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of C.C. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:07.01.2023 12:17:19 No. 567/1/10 under Sections 18, 20 & 21 of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, pending before the Court of Ms. Ritika Kansal, learned Metropolitan Magistrate-07, North-West District, Rohini Court, Delhi.
The aforesaid complaint was initially filed by late Sh. Mulkh Raj Dhamija, who was operated for Kidney transplant at Jaipur Golden Hospital (petitioner no.1) on 26.12.2006. As per the case of the complainant, the operation was not successful and apart from filing a case before the Hon‟ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, late Sh. Mulkh Raj Dhamija had also filed the aforesaid complaint against petitioner no.1, Jaipur Golden Charitable Clinical Laboratory Trust, petitioner no.2 (Director), petitioner no.3 (Administrative Head), petitioner no.4 (Consultant), petitioner no.5 (Surgeon), petitioner no.6 (Member of Operation Team), petitioner no.7 (Member of Operation Team) and petitioner no.8 (Nephrologist).
During the pendency of the present petition and the complaint, Sh. Mulkh Raj Dhamija expired on 27.02.2018 and his son Sh. Akash Dhamija had been substituted in his place before the learned trial Court vide order dated 19.02.2020. In the present petition as well, Sh. Akash Dhamija, son of Sh. Mulkh Raj Dhamija has been substituted as respondent no. 2 vide order dated 21.07.2022.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the present petition and the aforesaid complaint, the matter has been settled between the parties vide settlement agreement/Memorandum of Understanding dated 18.10.2022. The same has been placed on record in CRL.M.A. 155/2023 seeking quashing of the said complaint on the basis of compromise. The terms of the settlement Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:07.01.2023 12:17:19 agreement have been reproduced as under:
"1. It is agreed between the parties that the Second Party will withdraw his Complaint case bearing No. 7718/2016 (567/1/2010) presently pending before the Court of Ms. Ritika Kansal, MM-07, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, against the Petitioners or the Petitioners can approach the Hon'ble High Court for getting the above said criminal complaint quashed from the High Court, New Delhi and in that case the second party will operate in getting Criminal Complaint Quashed.
2. It is further agreed between the parties that both the parties shall get disposed off or withdraw the petition bearing no. Crl.M.C. 2476 of 2011 pending before the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi.
3. It is agreed between the parties that the First Party will withdraw their petition bearing no. W.P. (C) 43 Of 2010 pending before the Hon'ble High Court at Delhi.
4. The parties declare that this settlement has been entered to bring about a quietus to the misfortunate incident and the parties may peacefully lead their lives.
5. Both the First and Second Party shall strictly abide by the terms of the present deed.
6. The parties declare that this settlement has been entered to bring a quietus to the misfortunate incident and the parties may peacefully lead their lives. 7. It is further agreed between the parties that both the parties have agreed not to file any defamation petition or any other complaint or application or suit, claims, etc. against each other in this regard in future."
Petitioner no. 1 is a trust, petitioners no. 2 & 7 have joined the proceedings through video conferencing and petitioners no. 3, 4, 5, 6 & 8 are present in the Court today.
Mr. Akash Dhamija, the substituted respondent no.2, is present in Court today along with his counsel and submits that the matter has been settled between the parties in terms of the aforesaid agreement and he does not wish to prosecute the aforesaid complaint pending before the Court of Ms. Ritika Kansal, MM-07, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:07.01.2023 12:17:19 petitioners that the offences under Sections 18, 20 & 21 of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, as mentioned in the complaint are non-compoundable in nature and there is no provision for withdrawal of the aforesaid complaint under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the trial of warrant cases instituted otherwise than on police report [Chapter XIX(B)].
In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes by observing as under:-
"61. ... In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and the fact that the parties have put a quietus to the dispute, this Court deems fit to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No useful purpose will be served in continuing with C.C. No. 567/1/10 under Sections 18, 20 & 21 of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, pending before the Court of Ms. Ritika Kansal, learned Metropolitan Magistrate-07, North-West District, Rohini Court, Delhi.
In the interest of justice, the petition/application is allowed. The subject complaint bearing C.C. No. 567/1/10 under Sections 18, 20 & 21 of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, pending before the Court of Ms. Ritika Kansal, learned Metropolitan Magistrate-07, North-West Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:07.01.2023 12:17:19 District, Rohini Court, Delhi, is hereby quashed.
Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
AMIT SHARMA, J JANUARY 5, 2023/ab Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ANITA BAITAL Signing Date:07.01.2023 12:17:19