Full Text
Translation output
$-59 ^ HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C.412/2020& CRL.M.A.3195/2021
RAM KRISHNA & ORS Applicant
Through: Mr.Dewan Singh,Advocate.
CRL.M.C.412/2020& CRL.M.A.3195/2021
RAM KRISHNA & ORS Applicant
Through: Mr.Dewan Singh,Advocate.
VERSUS
THE STATE& ANR Respondent
Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State with SI Vinod Nain.
R-2 in person with Mr.Kapil Kumar, Advocate for R-2.
Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State with SI Vinod Nain.
R-2 in person with Mr.Kapil Kumar, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
26.02.2021 (hearing through Video Conferencing)
26.02.2021 (hearing through Video Conferencing)
CRL.M.A.3195/2021 in CRL.M.C.412/2020
CRL.M.A.3195/2021 has been filed on behalfofthe petitioners to submit to the effect that the petitioner no.3 has expired and the copy of the death certificate as issued by the Government of Bihar has been placed on the record indicating the demise of the petitioner no.3 on
04.10.2016 which factum is affirmed by the complainant ofthe FIR i.e. the respondent no.2 herein. The petitioner no.3 is thus, directed to be deleted from array ofparties.
The matter is indicated to have been listed for the date 04.05.2020 when it could not be taken up due to prevailing pandemic and has been re-notified for 22.04.2021 with the matter having been taken up on
04.10.2016 which factum is affirmed by the complainant ofthe FIR i.e. the respondent no.2 herein. The petitioner no.3 is thus, directed to be deleted from array ofparties.
The matter is indicated to have been listed for the date 04.05.2020 when it could not be taken up due to prevailing pandemic and has been re-notified for 22.04.2021 with the matter having been taken up on
CRL.M.A. 3195/2021 filed on behalfofthe petitioners submitting to the effect that a settlement has since been arrived at between the petitioners
2021:DHC:4474 > and the respondent no.2 and no useful purpose would be served by the continuation ofthe proceedings in relation to the presentFIR.
The Investigating Officer of the case is present through Video
Conferencing and has identified the petitioners as being the accused arrayed in the FIR in question and has also identified the respondent no.2 as being the complainantthereof.
The respondent no.2 in her deposition on oath in replies to specific
Court queries has affirmed the factum of the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioners and has also testified to the effect that the marriage between her and the petitioner no.l has since been dissolved vide a decree ofdivorce through mutual consent under Section 13B(2)of the HMA, 1955 in HMA Petition No.1230/2019 vide a decree dated
14.08.2019 of the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, THC,New Delhi and has stated that the total settled sum ofRs.5,00,000/- has since been received by her from the petitioners and has further stated that there are now no claims ofhers left against the petitioner nos. 1,2&
4 and has affirmed that the petitioner no.3 has already expired. She has further stated that there is no child bom ofthe wedlock between her and the petitioner no.l. The respondent no.2 has further stated that in view of the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioners, she does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the
FIR No.296/2016, PS Sarai Rohilla under Sections 498A/406/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor does she want them to be punished in relation thereto.
On behalfofthe State,there is no opposition to the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing ofthe FIR in question in view ofthe settlement arrived at between the parties and the deposition of the respondent no.2.
In view ofthe deposition ofthe respondent no.2 and there being no reason to disbelieve that she has arrived at a settlement with the petitioners voluntarily ofher own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter and has understood the implications of the statement made by her as the respondent no.2 is apparently well educated having done her MA in public administration, in as much as, the FIR is apparently emanated from a matrimonial discord which has since been resolved by the dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner no.l and the respondent no.2,for maintenance ofpeace and harmony between the parties it is considered appropriate to put a quietus to the litigation between the parties in relation to the FIR in question in terms of the verdict ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Courtin NarenderSingh & Ors. V.State of Punjab-, (2014) 6 SCC 466 wherein it has been observed vide paragraph 31(IV)to the effect:-
"31.In view ofthe aforesaid discussion, wesum up andlay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminalproceedings:
(I )
(II )
(HI)
(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out ofcommercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputesshould be quashed when theparties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. and in view ofthe observations ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian
Singh vs.State ofPunjab & Another,(2012)10 SCC 303,to the effect:-
"58 No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is notsafe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or thatthe victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect ofserious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention ofCorruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly andpredominantly bear civilflavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony,particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within theframework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR ifit is satisfied that on theface ofsuch settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings,justice shall be casualty and ends ofjustice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its ownfacts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed." [Refer to B.S.
Joshi,(2003)4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant,(2008)9 SCC
677andManojSharma,(2008)16SCCi.]" and in view of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jitendra
Raghuvanshi& Ors. Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi& Anr.(2013)4 SCC 58, to the effect:-
"15. In our view, it is the duty ofthe courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold thatfor the purpose ofsecuring ends of justice. Section 320 ofthe Code would not be a bar to the exercise ofpower of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequentcriminalproceedings.
2021:DHC:4474 > and the respondent no.2 and no useful purpose would be served by the continuation ofthe proceedings in relation to the presentFIR.
The Investigating Officer of the case is present through Video
Conferencing and has identified the petitioners as being the accused arrayed in the FIR in question and has also identified the respondent no.2 as being the complainantthereof.
The respondent no.2 in her deposition on oath in replies to specific
Court queries has affirmed the factum of the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioners and has also testified to the effect that the marriage between her and the petitioner no.l has since been dissolved vide a decree ofdivorce through mutual consent under Section 13B(2)of the HMA, 1955 in HMA Petition No.1230/2019 vide a decree dated
14.08.2019 of the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, THC,New Delhi and has stated that the total settled sum ofRs.5,00,000/- has since been received by her from the petitioners and has further stated that there are now no claims ofhers left against the petitioner nos. 1,2&
4 and has affirmed that the petitioner no.3 has already expired. She has further stated that there is no child bom ofthe wedlock between her and the petitioner no.l. The respondent no.2 has further stated that in view of the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioners, she does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the
FIR No.296/2016, PS Sarai Rohilla under Sections 498A/406/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor does she want them to be punished in relation thereto.
On behalfofthe State,there is no opposition to the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing ofthe FIR in question in view ofthe settlement arrived at between the parties and the deposition of the respondent no.2.
In view ofthe deposition ofthe respondent no.2 and there being no reason to disbelieve that she has arrived at a settlement with the petitioners voluntarily ofher own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter and has understood the implications of the statement made by her as the respondent no.2 is apparently well educated having done her MA in public administration, in as much as, the FIR is apparently emanated from a matrimonial discord which has since been resolved by the dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner no.l and the respondent no.2,for maintenance ofpeace and harmony between the parties it is considered appropriate to put a quietus to the litigation between the parties in relation to the FIR in question in terms of the verdict ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Courtin NarenderSingh & Ors. V.State of Punjab-, (2014) 6 SCC 466 wherein it has been observed vide paragraph 31(IV)to the effect:-
"31.In view ofthe aforesaid discussion, wesum up andlay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminalproceedings:
(I )
(II )
(HI)
(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out ofcommercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputesshould be quashed when theparties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. and in view ofthe observations ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian
Singh vs.State ofPunjab & Another,(2012)10 SCC 303,to the effect:-
"58 No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is notsafe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or thatthe victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect ofserious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention ofCorruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly andpredominantly bear civilflavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony,particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within theframework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR ifit is satisfied that on theface ofsuch settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings,justice shall be casualty and ends ofjustice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its ownfacts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed." [Refer to B.S.
Joshi,(2003)4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant,(2008)9 SCC
677andManojSharma,(2008)16SCCi.]" and in view of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jitendra
Raghuvanshi& Ors. Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi& Anr.(2013)4 SCC 58, to the effect:-
"15. In our view, it is the duty ofthe courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold thatfor the purpose ofsecuring ends of justice. Section 320 ofthe Code would not be a bar to the exercise ofpower of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequentcriminalproceedings.
ORDER
16. There has been an outburst ofmatrimonial disputes in recent times. They institution of marriage occupies an importantplace and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest ofthe individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. Ifthe parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead offighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising their extraordinaryjurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power underSection 482should be exercisedsparingly and with circumspection only when the Court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse ofprocess of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedingsoughtto be quashed...." (emphasissupplied) In view thereof, the FIR No.296/2016, PS Sarai Rohilla under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all consequential proceeding emanating therefrom against the petitioners are thus quashed. The petition CRL.M.C. 412/2020 and the accompanying application CRL.M.A.3195/2021 are disposed ofaccordingly. The date 22.04.2021 stands cancelled. ANU MALHOTRA,J