Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 1568/2013
/o MS. MONIKA GUPTA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Jitender Sethi, Advocate
CRL.M.C. 1568/2013
/o MS. MONIKA GUPTA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Jitender Sethi, Advocate
VERSUS
NAWAL BIHAR! GUPTA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Gurtinder Singh Gujral & Mr. R.R. Bhardwaj, Advocates for respondent No.I
Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
N0.2 State with SI Sugan Lal
Through: Mr. Gurtinder Singh Gujral & Mr. R.R. Bhardwaj, Advocates for respondent No.I
Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
N0.2 State with SI Sugan Lal
CRL.M.C. 1925/2013
NAWAL BIHAR! GUPTA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Gurtinder Singh & Mr. R.R.
NAWAL BIHAR! GUPTA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Gurtinder Singh & Mr. R.R.
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI
Through:
Through:
CORAM:
Bhardwaj, Advocates ..... Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent - State with SI Manmohan Ahuja
Respondent No.2 in person
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
15.05.2013 Petitioners m the above-captioned two petitions are seeking
Crl. M.C. No. 1925/2013 Page 1 2013:DHC:7363 quashing of FIR No. 180/2009, under Section 3 of The Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1861, registered at police station Kingsway Camp, Delhi
[in Crl. M.C. No. 1568/2013] and FIR No. 528/2005, under Sections
498A/406/34 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Model Town, Delhi
[Crl. M.C. No~ 1925/2013]. Both the FIRs are outcome of a matrimonial dispute, quashing of which is sought by petitioners in the above captioned two petitions on the ground that the matrimonial dispute has been mutually and amicably resolved in terms of Compromise Deed of
28th April, 2011.
Upon notice, Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor submits that petitioners - Nawal Bihari Gupta and Ms. Monika are present in the Court and on the basis of identity poof furnished by them, they have been identified by SI Suggan Lal & SI Manmohan Ahuja as the first-informant of FIR No. 528/2005 and FIR No. 180/2009 respectively.
Mr. Jitender Sethi, Advocate, submits that the settlement arrived at has been acted upon and decree ofdivorce has been already granted to the parties by the matrimonial court on 13th September, 2012 and points out that in terms of Compromise Deed of 28th April, 2011, petitioner- husband has agreed to pay a sum of~2,50,000/- to petitioner-wife and out of which, a sum of ~1,00,000/- has already been paid to her and the remaining amount of ~1,50,000/- shall be paid in the form of three fixed deposit receipt~:of ~5o,oool each in three installments after every three years i.e. first installment in ·2015; second installment in 2018 and third and final installment in August, 2021.
Petitioners of above captioned petitions present in the Court submit that the Compromise' Deed of 28th April, 2011 has been arrived at
,, Crl. M.C. No. 1925/2013 ' '' ' i',' ,, l\ Page 2
)
'•
• of their own sweet will and, undertake to abide by the terms thereof and
' '' submit that no~ no dispu~~: {nter se survives and so, these proceedings be brought to an end. · :
In 'Gian Singh Vs. ·State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has reco~ized the need of 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 andprompt attention ofa court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition ofthe society or wouldpromote savagery.
Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding 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 opinior,z, continuation ofcriminal proceedings w~ll be an exercise in futility and justice in the case d(qriands that. the dispute between the parties is put to an· end and p~ace is restored: securing the ends of justice being'ihe1 ultimate guidingfactor. "
./ ·.iI 1: ·~~ ,, Consider,~~g the fa?t 1 ;that the matrimonial dispute, which is the
·J· .. .; ;,;. subject matter·o,f afore-no~ed two FIRs, stands mutually, amicably and voluntarily res~lved am.origst petitioners in above -captioned two
·JI{,l~ lJvj I·' • petitions, no ·u~eful purpdse would be served by continuing the i~I o o ~'. proceedings aris,ing out of rlR in question, as it would be an exercise in
! ~· t futility. ..::1;. . .:.~.:,·: i '
•1J .•f !•
• ' ' :' ' !.• ! ~ ,; •
Consequ~~tly, FIR N<;>. 528/2005, under SectiOns 498A/406/34 of
·li·'' .'·' "il I.P.C., register~d at Polih~!}. Station Model Town, Delhi and FIR No. q I w~~ 'i ',I:,: l •·~~I • ' ··.~ ~ 1
180/2009, under Sectton 3.~.of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1861, and
I • l , /t.' I, I ·~ l)l
Crl. M.C. No. 192SJ~013 I~ t.
:·1)
·:- I, ·.
'q •
'I '
' l Page 3 proceedings .emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners, with the rider that rights of the male child born out of this wedlock regarding maintenance etc. would be available to him upon attaining the age of majority.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
MAY 15,2013 r Crl. M.C. No. 1925/2013 Page4
Public Prosecutor for respondent - State with SI Manmohan Ahuja
Respondent No.2 in person
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
15.05.2013 Petitioners m the above-captioned two petitions are seeking
Crl. M.C. No. 1925/2013 Page 1 2013:DHC:7363 quashing of FIR No. 180/2009, under Section 3 of The Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1861, registered at police station Kingsway Camp, Delhi
[in Crl. M.C. No. 1568/2013] and FIR No. 528/2005, under Sections
498A/406/34 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Model Town, Delhi
[Crl. M.C. No~ 1925/2013]. Both the FIRs are outcome of a matrimonial dispute, quashing of which is sought by petitioners in the above captioned two petitions on the ground that the matrimonial dispute has been mutually and amicably resolved in terms of Compromise Deed of
28th April, 2011.
Upon notice, Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor submits that petitioners - Nawal Bihari Gupta and Ms. Monika are present in the Court and on the basis of identity poof furnished by them, they have been identified by SI Suggan Lal & SI Manmohan Ahuja as the first-informant of FIR No. 528/2005 and FIR No. 180/2009 respectively.
Mr. Jitender Sethi, Advocate, submits that the settlement arrived at has been acted upon and decree ofdivorce has been already granted to the parties by the matrimonial court on 13th September, 2012 and points out that in terms of Compromise Deed of 28th April, 2011, petitioner- husband has agreed to pay a sum of~2,50,000/- to petitioner-wife and out of which, a sum of ~1,00,000/- has already been paid to her and the remaining amount of ~1,50,000/- shall be paid in the form of three fixed deposit receipt~:of ~5o,oool each in three installments after every three years i.e. first installment in ·2015; second installment in 2018 and third and final installment in August, 2021.
Petitioners of above captioned petitions present in the Court submit that the Compromise' Deed of 28th April, 2011 has been arrived at
,, Crl. M.C. No. 1925/2013 ' '' ' i',' ,, l\ Page 2
)
'•
• of their own sweet will and, undertake to abide by the terms thereof and
' '' submit that no~ no dispu~~: {nter se survives and so, these proceedings be brought to an end. · :
In 'Gian Singh Vs. ·State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has reco~ized the need of 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 andprompt attention ofa court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition ofthe society or wouldpromote savagery.
Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding 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 opinior,z, continuation ofcriminal proceedings w~ll be an exercise in futility and justice in the case d(qriands that. the dispute between the parties is put to an· end and p~ace is restored: securing the ends of justice being'ihe1 ultimate guidingfactor. "
./ ·.iI 1: ·~~ ,, Consider,~~g the fa?t 1 ;that the matrimonial dispute, which is the
·J· .. .; ;,;. subject matter·o,f afore-no~ed two FIRs, stands mutually, amicably and voluntarily res~lved am.origst petitioners in above -captioned two
·JI{,l~ lJvj I·' • petitions, no ·u~eful purpdse would be served by continuing the i~I o o ~'. proceedings aris,ing out of rlR in question, as it would be an exercise in
! ~· t futility. ..::1;. . .:.~.:,·: i '
•1J .•f !•
• ' ' :' ' !.• ! ~ ,; •
Consequ~~tly, FIR N<;>. 528/2005, under SectiOns 498A/406/34 of
·li·'' .'·' "il I.P.C., register~d at Polih~!}. Station Model Town, Delhi and FIR No. q I w~~ 'i ',I:,: l •·~~I • ' ··.~ ~ 1
180/2009, under Sectton 3.~.of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1861, and
I • l , /t.' I, I ·~ l)l
Crl. M.C. No. 192SJ~013 I~ t.
:·1)
·:- I, ·.
'q •
'I '
' l Page 3 proceedings .emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners, with the rider that rights of the male child born out of this wedlock regarding maintenance etc. would be available to him upon attaining the age of majority.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
MAY 15,2013 r Crl. M.C. No. 1925/2013 Page4
JUDGMENT