Harpal Singh & Ors. v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

Delhi High Court · 05 Oct 2015 · 2015:DHC:8360

P. S. Teji

CRL.M.C. 1374/2015

2015:DHC:8360

criminal petition_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court quashed a matrimonial dispute FIR under Sections 498A and 406 IPC based on a bona fide settlement, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure justice.

Full Text

Crl.M.C. 1374/2015 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 1374/2015
Date of Decision: October 05th , 2015 HARPAL SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through; Mr.Dinesh Kumar, Adv.

VERSUS

THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Panna Lal Sharma, APP for State.
Mr.Prashant Shokeen, Adv. for R-2.
SI Yogesh Kumar, PS Prashant Vihar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, J.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.128/2005 dated 10.02.2005, under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC registered at Police Station Prashant Vihar, Delhi on the basis of settlement whose terms find mention in the mediation report arrived at between the parties in suit no.634/08 i.e. between the petitioners-herein viz. Harpal Singh (father-in-law), Smt. Chander Kaur (mother-in-law), Vijay Singh (brother-in-law), Kuldeep Singh (brother-in-law), Nitu Kaur (sisterin-law) and respondent No.2/complainant-herein Smt. Harjeet Kaur, 2015:DHC:8360 made at the Mediation Center, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 10.06.2010.

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 of the FIR in question by her counsel.

3. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid compromise in which it was agreed that amount of settlement i.e. Rs.70,000/- shall be given by Sh. Harpal Singh to Smt. Harjeet Kaur in five monthly installments in which first four installments shall be of Rs.15,000/- each while the last installment shall be of Rs.10,000/which shall be given to the complainant on her statement before this Court in the petition for quashing of FIR. It has been agreed between the parties that minor daughter-Ms. Gurpreet Kaur shall remain in the exclusive custody of her mother-Smt. Harjeet Kaur. The complainant shall not raise any claim whatsoever towards the maintenance or qua the property title pertaining to the petitioners. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of the aforesaid compromise and of her affidavit dated 26.03.2015 supporting this petition and submits that the matter between the parties has been resolved without any pressure, undue influence from any side. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now, no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of the respondent No.2 has been recorded in this regard in which she stated that she has entered 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:- “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 proceedings.”

5. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC

466. The pertinent observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are as under:-

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up

and lay down the following principles by which the

High Court would be guided in giving adequate

treatment to the settlement between the parties and

exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code

while accepting the settlement and quashing the

proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with

direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code

12,535 characters total

is to be distinguished from the power which lies in

the Court to compound the offences under 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 of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not to be 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 be 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 when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.”

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court is of the considered opinion that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are ought to be exercised in the absence of express provisions of law to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. Matrimonial litigation is one of the cases where the dispute arises on small issues or differences at a particular point of time which culminates into the situation of entering into the litigation. These differences if not permitted to be sort out immediately or during the short tenure then it leads to the multiplicity of the litigation and makes the life of the family members/relatives as hell. This Court is of the considered opinion that in matrimonial disputes, the Court must exercise inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice and to avoid the abuse of process of law. When normally the litigation is being initiated, some non-compoundable offences are also alleged between the parties. Definitely, if the offences are compoundable and are covered under Section 320 Cr.P.C, then the parties could settle down the dispute and compound the offences, but due to the addition of non-compoundable offences, it becomes endless litigation despite settling down the matter between the parties and unnecessarily the litigation is being prolonged. In other words, it could be termed that the pendency of such a litigation tantamount to abuse of process of law. The High Court while exercising the inherent power to secure the ends of justice ought to exercise its power to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. In other words, if the matrimonial disputes are being settled down, this Court is of the considered opinion that the High Court must exercise its inherent power and put an end to the litigation between the parties arisen on account of matrimonial dispute.

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 justice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent the express provisions of law.

8. Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties, particularly when a sum of Rs.70,000/- has already been paid to the respondent no.2, 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.

9. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of statement made by the respondent No.2, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.

10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.128/2005 dated 10.02.2005, under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC registered at Police Station Prashant Vihar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.

11. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE OCTOBER 05, 2015

Harpal Singh & Ors. v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation