Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Jain v. The State, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Anr.

1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash FIR No. 1140/2021 under Section 498A/406/376/377/34 IPC registered at PS Samaipur Badli, Delhi and all consequent proceedings emanating there from pending before the court of competent jurisdiction.

2. The factual matrix giving rise to the instant case is that the marriage between Petitioner no. 1 and Respondent no. 2/complainant was solemnised on 13.12.2017 as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies. No child was born out of this wedlock.

3. It is averred in the petition that the parties lived together for only about five months when a scuffle took place between the parties due to some misunderstanding which resulted in various litigations being ensued between them including an application under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 in CC No. 1692/2020 and Maintenance petition bearing no. Mt. Case Ni. 91/2020 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. A complaint was also made by Respondent No. 2/complainant before CAW Cell against the petitioners and on the basis of the said complaint, the present FIR was registered.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have resolved their disputes amicably. Petitioner no. 1 and Respondent No. 2/ complainant have entered into MOU/Compromise Deed dated 25.03.2022. As per the settlement, it has been agreed between the parties that petitioner no. 1 shall pay a total sum ofRs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs) to Respondent No.2towards all kinds of claims, Stridhan, Jewelry, Past, Present, and Future maintenance etc and the expenses incurred on the marriage.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the MOU, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No.2/complainant have taken divorce by mutual consent and all the pending cases have already been withdrawn. He, further submits that since no dipsute is pending between the parties, no purpose would be served to proceed further with the proceedings emanating from the present FIR.

6. It has been held in a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court as well as this Court that the High Courts have the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, however, such power is to be used sparingly with caution and circumspection. The High Courts must give due regard to the nature and gravity of offence sought to be compounded. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be used for quashing in cases where heinous crimes and serious offences of mental depravity, rape, dacoity etc. have been committed since these offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact in society. Reliance can be placed on Gian Singhv. State of Punjab(2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab(2014) 6 SCC 466 and State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors(2019) 5 SCC 688.

7. I have interacted with parties that are present before this court and have duly been identified by IO. Respondent no. 2/complainant states that she has already received Rs. 5,00,000/- and the remaining balance settled amount ofRs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) has been received today vide DD no. 92081[7] drawn at Kotak Mahindra Bank on 16.12.2022. She further states that she has settled all the disputes with petitioners voluntarily without any fear, force or coercion.

8. Affidavit of Respondent no. 2 has also been placed on record affirming the fact that the claims and grievances of Respondent NO. 2/complainant against the petitioners in the abovementioned FIR stand settled. It also states that Respondent no. 2/ complainant does not have any objection if the FIR against the petitioners is quashed.

9. It is pertinent to note that offences under section 376 IPC or Section 377 are heinous offences and point to the mental depravity of the accused and hence ought not to be quashed by the High Court on the basis of compromise by exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, the facts of the present case are peculiar in nature as the FIR arises out of a matrimonial dispute. I am also of the view that the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak in the present case as Respondent NO. 2/complainant does not seem to support the case of the prosecution anymore as the parties have decided to part ways and get ahead in their lives without having any acrimony against each other.

10. This Court in an umpteen number of such cases has quashed the criminal proceedings. Reliance can be placed on the judgments of this court in CRL.M.C. 2819/2022 titled as Rifakat Ali & Ors Vs. State & Anr, CRL.M.C. 2819/2022 titled as Sh Shailesh Deshwal vs State Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Anrand W.P.(CRL) 1185/2022 titled as Arshad Ahmad & Ors. v. State Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Anr.

11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. even for offences under Section 376/377 IPC but it is made clear that this Court is exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in the case of such heinous offences only on the ground of compromise only because it arises out of a matrimonial dispute. However, since it is on peculiar facts and circumstances, the same will not be taken as precedent.

12. Accordingly, FIR No. 1140/2021 under Section 498A/406/376/377/34 IPC registered at PS Samaipur Badli, Delhi and all consequent proceedings emanating there from are quashed.

13. Petition stands disposed of.

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J FEBRUARY 10, 2023 ‘pp’