Anil Kumar Dhawan & Ors. v. State & Anr.

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking quashing of FIR No.23/2009 dated 13.10.200 registered at police station K.N. Katju Marg, under Sections, 498-A, 406, 34 IPC, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.

2. Issue notice.

3. Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Mr. Amit Bhasin, Advocate for the second respondent / complainant, accept notice.

4. It is stated that after the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged, the complainant; who is arrayed as the second respondent herein; and the first petitioner, Anil Kumar Dhawan, have obtained a decree of divorce by 2014:DHC:4161 mutual consent under Section 13 (B) (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 02.01.2014. In those proceedings, a joint statement was recorded before the Family court on 18.12.2013 setting down all the terms and conditions, on which, disputes and differences between the parties were resolved. A copy of the said settlement has also been annexed to this petition. The said settlement, inter alia, contemplates that the complainant shall receive a total sum of Rs.14 lakhs from the first petitioner Anil Kumar Dhawan, and further, the child, Gaurvi, born to the complainant and the first petitioner shall remain in the permanent custody of the complainant; and that the first petitioner shall not claim meeting and visitation rights in respect of the child at any point of time. Both parties, the complainant as well as the first petitioner; who are present in person; specifically approbate this settlement, and reiterate their commitment to remain bound by the same. The statement of both the parties is accepted by this Court.

5. Out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.14 lakhs, the second respondent acknowledges the receipt of Rs.10 lakhs paid to her earlier at different points of time. Today, the remaining amount of Rs.[4] lakhs has also been handed over to the complainant by way of a Demand Draft bearing No.217086, dated 20.08.2014, drawn on ICICI Bank, favouring Smt. Jyotsna. With the receipt of this amount, the complainant states that nothing further is due to her. She further states that she is now not interested in pursuing the matter any further, and that these proceedings be closed, as prayed for in the petition.

6. Counsel for the complainant further states that, as contemplated under the aforesaid settlement, all pending proceedings instituted by the complainant / respondent No.2 against the petitioners, already stand withdrawn.

7. Counsel for the State submits that although the charge-sheet has been filed in the matter, charge is yet to be framed; and further, the matter has arisen primarily out of a domestic dispute where the complainant is not interested in supporting the prosecution; no useful purpose will be served in continuing with these proceedings.

8. Under the circumstances, and looking to the decision of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, which has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a noncompoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant; by observing as under: “58.....However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.” I am of the opinion that since the matter arises out of a domestic dispute, which has ultimately been resolved amicably; and where the complainant is not interested in supporting the prosecution any further; the matter deserves to be given a quietus.

9. Consequently, the petition is allowed and FIR No.23/2009 dated 13.10.200 registered at police station K.N. Katju Marg, under Sections, 498- A, 406, 34 IPC, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

10. The petition is disposed off.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA Judge AUGUST 26, 2014 dr