Full Text
CRL.M.C. 3777/2015
Date ofDecision :November 05^^ 2015 RAMAN DEEP SINGH & ANR Petitioners
Through Mr.Sunil Kumar, Adv.
Through Mr.G.M. Farooqui, APP for the State Mr.Rajesh Chhetri, Adv. with
Ms.Meenakshi Rawat, Adv. for R-2.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Raman Deep Singh and Kulvinder Kaur for quashing of FIR No.418/2013 dated 27.09.2013, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPG registered at Police Station Hari Nagar on the basis of settlement deed arrived at between the petitioner no.l and respondent No.2-Ms.JaspreetKaur on 06.01.2015.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant ofthe FIR in question Cn-M-C. 3777/2015 j 9 2015:DHC:11324 by her counsel.
3. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the settlement deed, parties have agreed to file for divorce by mutual consent and petitioner no.l has agreed to return all the dowry articles within 30 days from the statement of first motion. It has also been agreed that respondent no.2 shall not claim any maintenance for herself or the minor daughter who shall remain under the custody of respondent no.2. The minor daughter shall also have no right to seek maintenance from her father-petitioner no.l. The parties also agreed to not indulge in any civil and criminal case against each other and their family members. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of the aforesaid settlement deed and of her affidavit dated 10.09.2015. As per the affidavit filed by respondent no.2, she has settled all her disputes with the petitioners. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out ofthe FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement ofthe respondent No.2 has been recorded in this regard in which she stated that she has entered Crl.M.C. 3777/2015 into a compromise with the petitioners and has settled all the disputes with them. She further stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
4. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
^ 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 affinriative, the High Court shall be well within itsjurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings."
5. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State ofPunjab (2014) 6 SCC
466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are as under:-
Crl.M.C. 3777/2015 Page 3of[9] 29.[1] Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences vmder Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends ofjustice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process ofany court.
29.3. Such a power is not to he exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to he quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed whenthe parties have resolved theirentire disputes among themselves.
6. The inherent powers ofthe High Court ought to be exercised to prevent the abuse ofprocess oflaw and to secure the ends ofjustice. Crl.M.C. 3777/2015 Page 4of[9] The respondent no.2 agrees to the quashing ofthe FIR in question out of her own free will. As the matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be an extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal proceedings between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law andto secure the endsofjustice.
7. The incorporation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provision of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured; where the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid the causing of harassment to any person by using the provision of Cr.P.C. or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery of V justice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent the express provisions of law.
8. It is settled law that the inherent power ofthe High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case ofState ofMaharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Crl.M.C. 3777/2015 Page 5of[9] Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case of Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009 has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.
9. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not affect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends ofjustice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case ofB.S. Joshi and others v. StateofHaryana and another2003 (4) SCC675 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not Crl.M.C. 3777/2015 Page 6of[9] t) compoundable, it did not limit or affectthe powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon'ble Apex Court justified the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were noncompoundable. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that notwithstanding the fact the offence under Section 498A IPC is noncompoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts and circumstances ofthe case so warrant.
10. The Courts in India are now normally taking the view that endeavour should be taken topromote conciliation andsecure speedy settlement ofdisputes relating to marriage andfamily affairs such as, matrimonial disputes between the couple or/and between the wife and her m-laws. India beingavastcountry naturally has large number of Cri-M-C. 3777/2015 married persons resulting into high numbers ofmatrimonial disputes due to differences in temperament, life-styles, opinions, thoughts etc. between such couples, due to which majority is comingto the Court to get redressal. In its 59"^ report, the Law Commission ofIndia had emphasized that while dealing with disputes concerning the family, the Court ought to adopt an approach radically differentfrom that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings and that it should make reasonable efforts at settlement before the commencement ofthe trial Further it is also the constitutional mandate for speedy disposal of such disputes and to grant quick justice to the litigants. But, our Courts are already over burdened due to pendency oflarge number of cases because of which it becomes difficult for speedy disposal of matrimonial disputes alone. As the matrimonial disputes are mainly between the husband and the wife and personal matters are involved in such disputes, so, it requires conciliatory procedure to bring a settlement between them. Nowadays, mediation has played a very important role in settling the disputes, especially, matrimonial disputes and has yielded good results. The Court must exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to put an end to the Crl.M.C. 3777/2015 Page 8of[9] matrimonial litigations at the earliest so that the parties can live peacefully.
11. Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility and is a fit case for this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.
12. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of statement made by the respondent No.2 and the settlement arrived at between the parties, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.
13. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.418/2013 dated 27.09.2013, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPG registered at Police Station Hari Nagar and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.
14. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
NOVEMBER 05,2015 dd (PfTOl) JUDGl