Kapil Chaudhary & Ors. v. State & Anr.

1. Exemptionallowed, subject to alljust exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of. W.P.(CrI.) No.613/2013

1. By way of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution ofIndia read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek W.P.(CRL) 613/2013 page I of[5] 2013:DHC:7552 quashing of FIR bearing No.28/2008, under Sections 406/498A/34 IPG P.S. CWC, Nanak Pura, Delhi and all the proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that respondent No.2 was married to the petitioner No.l on 03.02.2005, according to Hindu rites and rituals.

3. It is stated in the petition that after marriage, the parties lived together for a couple of days and thereafter they started living separately. On 09.06.2008, respondent No.2 filed acomplaint against the petitioners at PS CAW Cell, Nanak Pura, Delhi which resulted into registration of FIR against the petitioners under Section 498-A/406/34 IPG. It is fiirther stated in the petition that during the proceedings, parties arrived at an amicable settlement and agreed to dissolve the marriage by decree of divorce by mutual consent. In terms ofsettlement, petitioner agreed to pay Rs.10 lacs to respondent No.2 towards full and final settlement. In terms ofsettlement, a sum of Rs.[8] lacs has already been received by respondent No.2. Today Mr.Jagdish Chhokar, father and Special Power of Attorney of complainant/respondent No.2 is present and submits that his daughter i.e. complainant is residing in Prague, Czech Republic. The balance sum of Rs.[2] lacs has been received by Mr.Jagdish Chhokar, father ofcomplainant m Court today vide Pay OrderNo.759460 dated 01.02.2013. Photocopy ofthe pay order placed on record.

4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners and respondent No.2 have amicably resolved their dispute and they have paid the total settled amount ofRs.lO lacs in terms ofsettlement. Counsel states that since the partieshave settledtheir disputes amicably, no useful purpose would be page 2 of[5] W.P.(CRL) 613/2013 served by continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners. Counsel thus prays for quashing of the FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising out of said FIR.

5. Mr.Jagdish Chhokar, father and Special Power of Attorney of the complainant/respondent No.2 is present in Court today. He also confirms the factum of amicable settlement of her daughter with the petitioners. His affidavit alongwith copy of power of attorney is placed on record wherein also he has reiterated the factum of amicable settlement with the petitioners. Mr.Jagdish Chhokar submits that he as well as his daughter have no objection ifthe FIR in question is quashed.

6. Offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC though is noncompoundable offence, in view of the latest decision in the case of Gian Singh VState ofPunjab & Am. 2012 (9) SCALE 257, the offence can be compounded. The three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue of quashing ofFIR, observed as under:- "57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: thepower ofthe High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise ofits inherentjurisdiction is distinct and differentfrom thepower given to a criminal courtfor compounding the offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is ofwideplenitude with nostatutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in suchpower, viz; (i) to secure the ends ofjustice or (ii) toprevent abuse oftheprocess of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances ofeach case and no category can beprescribed. W.P.(CRL) 613/2013 page3of[5] However, before exercise ofsuch power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences ofmental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim'sfamily and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed bypublic servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civilfavour stand on different footingfor thepurposes ofquashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial,financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or thefamily disputes where the wrong is basicallyprivate or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility ofconviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 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 proceeding or continuation ofthe criminalproceeding would tantamount to abuse oj process oflaw despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and ifthe answer to the above questions) is in affirmative, the High Court Ml be well within itsjurisdiction to quash the criminalproceeding.

7. In view of the aforesaid amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, Iam ofthe consideredviewthatno useful purposewouldbe served by continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners which will only be afutile exercise and wastage ofprecious time ofthe Court.

8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR bearing No.28/2008, under Sections 406/498A/34 IPG P.S. CWC, Nanak Pura, Delhi and all the proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, leavingthe parties to bear their own costs.

9. Order dasti. lTIBHARAM, APRIL 22,2013 'st'7'