Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 897/2011
SANJEEV DHANDHL\ & ORS. Petitioners
Through; Mr. O.P. Aggarwal, Mr. Yogender Kumar & Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocates
CRL.M.C. 897/2011
SANJEEV DHANDHL\ & ORS. Petitioners
Through; Mr. O.P. Aggarwal, Mr. Yogender Kumar & Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR Respondents
Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents No.1 &
2 with ASI Shamsudin Respondent No.3-first- informant/complainant in person
Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents No.1 &
2 with ASI Shamsudin Respondent No.3-first- informant/complainant in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
21.10.2013 Petitioner No.1-husband and his family members i.e petitioners NO. 2 to 5 are seeking quashing of FIR No. 409/2003, under Sections
498A/406/34 of the IPG, registered at police station Defence Golony, New Delhi at the instance ofrespondent No.3-wife.
Learned counsel'for petitioners submits that due to temperamental differences, petitioner No.1-husband and respondent No.2-wife could not live together and the FIR in question was got registered against petitioners. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that this matrimonial dispute was got settled between the parties on terms as reflected in the
Crl. M.C. No.897/2011 Page 1 2013:DHC:6626 order of 4 May, 2009 while recording joint statement of parties in petition under Section 13 (B)(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that joint statement of parties in proceedings under Section 13 (B) (2) ofthe the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 was got recorded and decree sheet was awarded by the matrimonial court on 6^June, 2009.
Notice.
Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accepts notice and submits on instructions from ASI Shamsudin that respondent No.3, who is the first-informant ofFIR in question, is present in the Court.
Ms. Rita Korotania, respondent No.3/ first-informant/ complainant accepts notice.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State informs that this matrimonial dispute was got settled for a sum of ?2,65,000/- in all, out of which a sum of ?1,00,000/- by way of demand draft was handed over to respondent No.3/first-informant at the time ofrecording of statement in proceedings under Section 13 (B) (1) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 and another sum of ?1,00,000/- by way ofdemand draft, which was deposited with the Investigating Officer ofthis case at the time ofhearing in the anticipatory bail application ofrespondents, was undertaken to be renewed by petitioner No.1-husband and handed over to respondent No.3/first-informant, which has not been done so far and the ftirther amount of ?65,000/- was agreed to be paid to respondent
No.3/first-informant at the time ofquashing ofthe FIR in question.
Respondent No.3/first-informant submits that the settlement in
Crl. M.C. No.897/2011 Page 2
•ri' question has not been fully acted upon since 2009 and insists that petitioners be directed to pay the arrears along with interest for the relevant period.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that in terms of settlement, a banker's cheque in the name of respondent No.3/first-informant bearing No. '560839', dated 19^ October, 2013 in the sum of?65,000/-, drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Branch Gurgaon, Haryana and a sum of
?35,000/- in cash for the delay occasioned has been handed over to her today inthe Court, which shehas accepted.
Respondent No.3 confirms that she has received the afore-noted banker's cheque and a sum of ?35,000/- in cash from petitioner No.l- husband today in the Court.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor forrespondent-State submits that the demand draft of ?1,00,000/-, bearing No. '256738', dated 10'^'
November, 2003 and revalidated on 2"'^ November, 2004, drawn on
Corporation Bank, Accounts Section, Delhi in the name of respondent
No.3/ first-informant has been handed by ASI Shamsudin, Investigating
Officer of this case, to counsel for petitioners, who undertakes on instructions that it would be promptly got revalidated to be given to respondent No.3. However, learned counsel for petitioners submits that sinceit is an oldmatter, it may taketwoweek's timeto dothe needful.
Petitioners are accordingly directed to get the afore-noted demand draft of ?1,00,000/- revalidated and deposit it with the Investigating
Officer within two weeks, who shall hand over it to respondent No.3.
Respondent No.3 submits that now since petitioners have been
,^j£££^£^^^[^^^^£^^^^£^^£|^^££_p3yinent^_th^efore^_sl^ has no objection to
Crl M.C. No.897/2011 Page 3 the quashing ofFIR in question.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the needof amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
"Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawfulcomposition ofthe society
# orwouldpromote savagery.
Where the High Court quashes a criminalproceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding
^ factor." r .•/
Since the settlement reflected in the order of 6''' June, 2009 has been fully acted upon, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out oftheFIRin question would bean exercise in fiitility.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and subject to petitioners depositing the revalidated demand draft of ?1,00,000/- with the
Crl M.C. No.897/2011 Page 4 r Investigating Officer of this case ( who shall promptly release it to the third respondent), and FIR No. 409/2003, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Defence Colony, New Delhi and proceedings emanating there-from are quashed qua petitioners.
This petition is accordingly disposed of OCTOBER 21,2013 r
Crl M.C. No.897/2011 (SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Page 5
21.10.2013 Petitioner No.1-husband and his family members i.e petitioners NO. 2 to 5 are seeking quashing of FIR No. 409/2003, under Sections
498A/406/34 of the IPG, registered at police station Defence Golony, New Delhi at the instance ofrespondent No.3-wife.
Learned counsel'for petitioners submits that due to temperamental differences, petitioner No.1-husband and respondent No.2-wife could not live together and the FIR in question was got registered against petitioners. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that this matrimonial dispute was got settled between the parties on terms as reflected in the
Crl. M.C. No.897/2011 Page 1 2013:DHC:6626 order of 4 May, 2009 while recording joint statement of parties in petition under Section 13 (B)(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that joint statement of parties in proceedings under Section 13 (B) (2) ofthe the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 was got recorded and decree sheet was awarded by the matrimonial court on 6^June, 2009.
Notice.
Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accepts notice and submits on instructions from ASI Shamsudin that respondent No.3, who is the first-informant ofFIR in question, is present in the Court.
Ms. Rita Korotania, respondent No.3/ first-informant/ complainant accepts notice.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State informs that this matrimonial dispute was got settled for a sum of ?2,65,000/- in all, out of which a sum of ?1,00,000/- by way of demand draft was handed over to respondent No.3/first-informant at the time ofrecording of statement in proceedings under Section 13 (B) (1) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 and another sum of ?1,00,000/- by way ofdemand draft, which was deposited with the Investigating Officer ofthis case at the time ofhearing in the anticipatory bail application ofrespondents, was undertaken to be renewed by petitioner No.1-husband and handed over to respondent No.3/first-informant, which has not been done so far and the ftirther amount of ?65,000/- was agreed to be paid to respondent
No.3/first-informant at the time ofquashing ofthe FIR in question.
Respondent No.3/first-informant submits that the settlement in
Crl. M.C. No.897/2011 Page 2
•ri' question has not been fully acted upon since 2009 and insists that petitioners be directed to pay the arrears along with interest for the relevant period.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that in terms of settlement, a banker's cheque in the name of respondent No.3/first-informant bearing No. '560839', dated 19^ October, 2013 in the sum of?65,000/-, drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Branch Gurgaon, Haryana and a sum of
?35,000/- in cash for the delay occasioned has been handed over to her today inthe Court, which shehas accepted.
Respondent No.3 confirms that she has received the afore-noted banker's cheque and a sum of ?35,000/- in cash from petitioner No.l- husband today in the Court.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor forrespondent-State submits that the demand draft of ?1,00,000/-, bearing No. '256738', dated 10'^'
November, 2003 and revalidated on 2"'^ November, 2004, drawn on
Corporation Bank, Accounts Section, Delhi in the name of respondent
No.3/ first-informant has been handed by ASI Shamsudin, Investigating
Officer of this case, to counsel for petitioners, who undertakes on instructions that it would be promptly got revalidated to be given to respondent No.3. However, learned counsel for petitioners submits that sinceit is an oldmatter, it may taketwoweek's timeto dothe needful.
Petitioners are accordingly directed to get the afore-noted demand draft of ?1,00,000/- revalidated and deposit it with the Investigating
Officer within two weeks, who shall hand over it to respondent No.3.
Respondent No.3 submits that now since petitioners have been
,^j£££^£^^^[^^^^£^^^^£^^£|^^££_p3yinent^_th^efore^_sl^ has no objection to
Crl M.C. No.897/2011 Page 3 the quashing ofFIR in question.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the needof amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
"Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawfulcomposition ofthe society
# orwouldpromote savagery.
Where the High Court quashes a criminalproceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding
^ factor." r .•/
Since the settlement reflected in the order of 6''' June, 2009 has been fully acted upon, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out oftheFIRin question would bean exercise in fiitility.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and subject to petitioners depositing the revalidated demand draft of ?1,00,000/- with the
Crl M.C. No.897/2011 Page 4 r Investigating Officer of this case ( who shall promptly release it to the third respondent), and FIR No. 409/2003, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Defence Colony, New Delhi and proceedings emanating there-from are quashed qua petitioners.
This petition is accordingly disposed of OCTOBER 21,2013 r
Crl M.C. No.897/2011 (SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
Page 5
JUDGMENT