Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 6305/2023
MURARI LAL & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vikrant Malik, Adv. with petitioners.
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP and SI Naresh Kumar, PS Dabri.
Ms. Dimple, Adv. with R-2.
BIMAL KUMAR @ BIMAL & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vikrant Malik, Adv. with petitioners.
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP and W/SI Sikhsha, PS Bindapur.
Ms. Dimple, Adv. with R-2.
Date of Decision: 01.09.2023.
JUDGMENT
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Applications stand disposed of.
1. The present petitions have been filed under section 482 CrPC seeking the quashing of case FIR No. 0251/17 dated 15.05.2017 under section 323/308/506/34 IPC registered at PS Dabri, South-West Delhi and FIR No. 0052/18 dated 13.01.2018 under section 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS Bindapur, New Delhi.
2. FIR No. 0251/17 was lodged on the statement of respondent No.2/ Deepak Kumar alleging therein that the petitioner, his mother along with her mausi daughter ‘Jyoti’ and Jyoti’s brother went to take articles from her husband/Vimal’s house, on which Jyoti’s in-laws started beating them and did not let them take articles home. Respondent no.2/ Vimal who is the husband of Jyoti also hit a brick on the head of the complainant with the intention to kill him due to which he sustained injuries and had to be taken to the hospital.
3. In FIR No. 0052/18 was lodged on the statement of respondent No.2/ Jyoti regarding the quarrels and beating caused to the complainant by her husband and her family members.
4. It has been submitted that in fact, the present dispute is a matrimonial dispute between Ms. Jyoti and Mr. Vimal Kumar.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Respondent no.2/complainant married petitioner no.1 on 12.11.2009 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. There are two daughters born out of the said wedlock, one child namely, ‘Aashi’ was born on 16.12.2010 and a second child ‘Arshi’ was born on 12.01.2016 and are in the care and custody of mother Jyoti. However, on account of temperamental differences and mental incompatibility, the parties started living separately since 08.05.2018 and instituted multiple litigations against each other and their respective families including the present FIR.
6. Learned Counsel further submits that during the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have resolved their disputes amicably and in furtherance thereof they have entered into a settlement agreement dated 11.06.2018 before the Counselling Cell, Family Courts, Dwarka, Delhi.
7. As per the settlement it has been agreed between the parties that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs only) in full and final settlement of the entire dispute to respondent NO. 2/complainant.
8. Pursuant to the settlement, a mutual divorce petition was also filed and a decree of divorce was granted vide order dated 15.02.2019 passed by Learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, South-West, Dwarka, Delhi.
9. Furthermore, the Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that since the parties have resolved all their differences amicably, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to quash FIR No. 0251/17 dated 15.05.2017 under section 323/308/506/34 IPC registered at PS Dabri, South-West Delhi and FIR No. 0052/18 dated 13.01.2018 under section 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS Bindapur, New Delhi and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.
10. The settlement agreement provides for the following terms and conditions:
11. The remaining Payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakhs only) in the name of Jyoti dated 29.08.2023 bearing DD No. 527145 drawn from Indian Bank.
12. An affidavit as per the Apex court ruling in Ganesh v. Sudhir Kumar Srivastav (2020) 20 SCC 787, that the said settlement shall not in any manner affect the future rights of the Minor children namely, Aashi and Arshi, has also been filed and placed on record.
13. Thus, the Courts have to adopt a pragmatic approach and can quash criminal proceedings for justifiable reasons, given the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and in order to secure ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. Moreover, the parties have already settled the dispute and have been granted mutual divorce. The complainant has stated that she no longer wishes to pursue the present complaints. The chances of conviction would be bleak, given that the complainant does not wish to pursue the present complaints on account of the amicable settlement. In such circumstances, continuance of the present FIRs would serve no useful purpose and may cause prejudice to the petitioner and be an exercise in futility. I do not see any reason to reject the compromise. The Supreme Court and this Court have time and again held that cases arising out of matrimonial differences should be put to quietus if the parties have arrived upon a genuine settlement. Reliance can be placed on B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675; K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226; Yashpal Chaudhrani and Others vs. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) and Another, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8179.
14. It has also come to the notice in case FIR no. 0251/17, one of the respondents had suffered grievous injuries, therefore offence under Section 308 IPC was attributed as they were assaulted by a brick. As per MLC there was bleeding on the head. It seems that the incident had occurred at the spur of the moment, and it was not a pre-meditated assault. It is also a matter of debate that whether Section 308 IPC will actually be attributed or not in view of the nature of injuries. The weapon of offence was a brick. The facts in the totality do not indicate that there was any intention of knowledge or the act was committed under such circumstances that had the death been caused, the petitioner would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
15. It has repeatedly been held by this court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court that if there is a trivial dispute between the parties and they have settled the matter amicably, it is desirable to put a quietus to the matter in dispute. It has also been held that merely because the FIR is registered under Section 308 IPC, it would not debar the court from quashing the FIR. The court has to look at the nature of injuries and all the attendant circumstances.
16. Since the dispute is predominantly private in nature and the parties have settled all the disputes amicably, in the interest of justice it would be better to put a quietus to the dispute. The chances of conviction would also be bleak and remote, given that the parties do not wish to pursue the present complaint on account of the settlement. I do not see any reason to reject the settlement.
17. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions of respondent no.2/ complainant FIR NO. 0251/17 dated 15.05.2017 under section 323/308/506/34 IPC registered at PS Dabri, South-West Delhi and FIR No. 0052/18 dated 13.01.2018 under section 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS Bindapur, New Delhi and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
18. The present petition along with all the pending applications stands disposed of.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J SEPTEMBER 1, 2023