Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL) 1967/2023
WASIM AHMAD & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. D. K. Srivastava, Adv. with petitioners.
Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhyay, ASC for the State with SI Shantanu PS Amar
Colony Mr. Amit Sahni, APP for the state Mr. Anil Basoya, Adv. for R-2
WASIM AHMAD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D. K. Srivastava, Adv. with petitioners.
Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhyay, ASC for the State with Mr. Amit Sahni, APP for the state with SI Shantanu PS
Amar Colony with SI Sunita PS New Usmanpur Mr. Anil Basoya, Adv. for R-2(VC)
Date of Decision: 29.08.2023
JUDGMENT
1. These are petitions seeking quashing of FIR No. 843/2020 dated 31.12.2020 registered at PS New Usmanpur, Delhi under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in W.P.(CRL) 1967/2023 and FIR No. 477/2020 dated 17.11.2020 registered at PS Amar Colony under Section 354 IPC and 10 POCSO Act in W.P.(CRL) 1969/2023. Both the FIRs were lodged on the complaint of the wife of the petitioner.
2. FIR No. 843/2020 was lodged on 31.12.2020 by the complainant/wife alleging that the petitioner has committed mental and physical harassment, cruelty, dowry demand, beatings, and caused threat to her life. Basis these allegations the said FIR was lodged under sections 498A/406/34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against the petitioner and his relatives. Later, both the parents of the petitioner expired. Their death certificates have been placed on record. Chargesheet is yet not filed.
3. FIR No. 477/2020 was registered on 17.11.2020, again at the complaint of the wife alleging therein, that the petitioner misappropriately touched the private part of their daughter. It was alleged that a matrimonial dispute arose between the complainant and the petitioner. Allegedly at the time, the complainant used to go out of the house for her work and her husband the petitioner used to stay back at home to look after the children. It was alleged that somewhere in July 2020 the complainant noticed some redness near the private part of their daughter, who was not letting her check it. The complainant took the child to a doctor whereupon she was advised that the rash/redness may have developed as a result of the diapers she was wearing. After 10-15 days of the treatment, the redness eventually subsided however the child remained uncomfortable and did not let the mother/complaint inspect the area. The complainant again took the child to the doctor whereupon she was told that it was possible that something bad may have happened with the child. The complainant went back home and enquired about this with her son. Upon enquiry, the son revealed that their father/petitioner used to badly touch his sister/victim and used to take her to the bedroom and touch her private parts. The complainant along with her children came to the police station and handed over a written complaint containing all these allegations, basis which, the present FIR No. 477/2020 came to be lodged under sections 354 IPC and 10 POCSO Act. Chargesheet is stated to have been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the parties submit that both the above said FIRs stemmed from a matrimonial dispute between the parties. Learned counsel submits that however, while the proceedings were underway, the parties reached on an amicable settlement on 11.05.2023 before the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, on the following terms and conditions:
5. Learned counsel submits that in terms of the above settlement, the parties have already been granted Talaq-E-Mubarat. The certificate of divorce/ Talaqnama dated 11.05.2023 is also on record. Learned counsel submits that in terms of the settlement all the pending litigations between the parties have also been withdrawn. Learned counsel submits that since the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes and no longer wish to pursue the present FIRs, it would be futile to keep the present complaints pending as the same would amount to abuse of the process of the court.
6. The parties are present in person and have been duly identified by the IO. Both the petitioner and complainant are stated to be lawyers. Respondent No. 2 states that both FIR No. 843/2020 & FIR No. 477/2020 arose as a result of matrimonial dispute between the parties. She states that FIR No. 477/2020 under sections 354 IPC and 10 POCSO Act was lodged on account of a misunderstanding. She states that she has amicably resolved all her differences with the petitioner and has already been granted Talaq on 11.05.2023. She states that she no longer wishes to pursue the present complaints and has no objection if the same are quashed. She states that she wants to move on with her life and has settled the matter voluntarily without any fear, force or coercion with the petitioner, keeping in mind the betterment and future of the children. She states that the custody of the children will remain with her and the petitioner will have visitation rights as per the terms of the settlement. Both the parties have also submitted that the settlement arrived between them is only with respect to their rights and titles and not with respect to the rights, titles and interest of the children, who may avail their remedies as per law. In compliance of the order dated 14.07.2023, both the parties have also filed an affidavit to this effect stating that the settlement shall not affect the rights, titles or interest of the children born out of the wedlock.
7. Submissions considered.
8. Upon a careful perusal of the FIR and the pleadings before this Court, it is amply clear that the issue in the present case stems from a matrimonial dispute between the parties. The parties have already settled the matter and have been granted Talaq. Respondent No. 2 has stated that the FIR No. 477/2020 came to be lodged under sections 354 IPC and 10 POCSO Act on account of misunderstandings. While this Court acknowledges the growing tendency in parties alleging grave allegations on one another merely to win matrimonial battles and strongly deprecates the practice of children being used as an instrument to set the criminal justice in motion solely to harass or intimidate the other party. Be that as it may, this Court under 482 CrPC has the inherent jurisdiction to quash any criminal proceedings in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.
9. In the present case, admittedly the dispute arose due to matrimonial discord between the parties. The petitioner is stated to have clear past antecedents. The FIR lodged under provisions of POCSO have admittedly been lodged owing to misunderstandings between the parties.
10. 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. 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.
11. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions of respondent no.2/ complainant, FIR NO. 843/2020 dated 31.12.2020 registered at PS New Usmanpur, Delhi under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in W.P.(CRL) 1967/2023 and FIR No. 477/2020 dated 17.11.2020 registered at PS Amar Colony under Section 354 IPC and 10 POCSO Act in W.P.(CRL) 1969/2023 and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
12. It is pertinent to mention that the children born out of the wedlock will be free to pursue their legal rights in accordance with the law. The parties have entered into a settlement only with regard to their rights and titles. The rights, titles, and interests of the children to pursue their legal remedies as per law is left open.
13. Moreover, since such cases place a burden on the criminal justice system, the petitioner Wasim Ahmad who is a lawyer by profession is directed to do ten Pro bono cases.
14. Learned member Secretary, Delhi State Legal Service Committee is requested to assign ten cases which the petitioner shall do Pro bono. The compliance report be filed within a month.
15. List on 11.10.2023 for compliance.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J AUGUST 29, 2023