Rakesh Pal & Ors. v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr

1. The second respondent was married to the first petitioner as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 01.12.2014. On 06.02.2016, she lodged first information report (FIR) no.120/2016 with police station Moti Nagar, alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against her husband (first petitioner), his father (second petitioner) and his mother (third petitioner). On conclusion of the investigation, police filed report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) on which cognizance was taken, the said matter being pending on the 2019:DHC:304 file of the Metropolitan Magistrate. The parties were referred to Delhi Mediation Centre at Tis Hazari Courts where they agreed to amicably resolve the matter by entering into a settlement dated 02.06.2016 in terms of which the parties were to approach, as per the timelines indicated, the appropriate forum for obtaining a decree of divorce, they also having agreed inter alia for the criminal case arising out of the aforementioned FIR to be sought to be quashed.

2. The petition, thus, has been moved before this court invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR no.120/2016 under Sections 498A, 406, 506, 34 IPC of Police Station Moti Nagar.

3. The second respondent, on being served with the notice, has appeared with counsel. Pursuant to the directions in the last order, she has submitted her affidavit sworn on 22.11.2018. She is present in the court in person and has shown her original aadhar card, photocopy whereof is presented as Annexure-IV with the petition. From the submissions made and the documents presented including the affidavit of the second respondent on record, it is clear that no child took birth out of the marriage of the second respondent with the petitioner. Pursuant to the settlement, the parties had earlier approached the Family Court and on their joint petition their marriage has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce granted on 09.05.2017. The second respondent also confirms by her affidavit that in terms of the settlement agreement she has already received the entire balance amount, only the amount of Rs.[1] Lakh being outstanding. The petitioners have handed over to her a demand draft bearing no.669349 dated 10.01.2019 for Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank, as per the settlement. It is clear from the submissions made by her in the affidavit that the settlement has been reached by the second respondent out of her own free will and volition, without any pressure or coercion.

4. Pertinent to note here that the offence under Section 498A IPC is not compoundable. The parties are constrained to move this court for quashing on the basis of amicable resolution arrived at by them in the facts and circumstances noted above.

5. The scope and ambit of the power conferred on this court by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in the particular context of prayer for quashing criminal proceedings, was examined by the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr., (2003) 4 SCC 675, against the backdrop of a catena of earlier decisions. Noting, with reference to the decision in State of Karnakata Vs. L Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699, that in exercise of this “inherent” and “wholesome power”, the touchstone is as to whether “the ends of justice so require”, and it was observed thus: “10.... that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature....that the compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.” (emphasis supplied)

6. The Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi (supra) further noted as under:- “What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on the earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound noncompoundable offences? The answer clearly has to be in the “negative”. It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides.”

7. Holding that “special features in...matrimonial matters are evident” and that it is “the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes”, referring to Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojiroo Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692, it was further observed that: “11.... Where, in the opinion of the court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings.”

8. In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court contrasted the request for quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of settlement with the possibility of compounding of an offence and observed thus:-

9. The above views in the context of matrimonial disputes resulting in criminal proceedings have been consistently followed over the years, as may be further illustrated by the decision of a bench of three Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Ors. Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and Anr., (2013) 4 SCC 58, the following observations summarising the philosophy succinctly:-

10. In a case where criminal proceedings arise essentially out of matrimonial dispute and the parties have decided to bury the hatchet, the court must examine if there is any likelihood of the criminal prosecution resulting in conviction. In fact-situation wherein the matrimonial relation has been brought to an end by mutual consent and the parties are eager to move on with their respective lives seeking closure and if there is nothing to indicate lack of bonafide on the part of any side, denial of the prayer for quashing the criminal case would restore acrimony rather than bring about peace. Allowing continuance of the criminal action would be fruitless and clearly an abuse of judicial process.

11. The case at hand passes the muster of the above-noted tests.

12. In the above facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed. The crime registered by the police vide FIR 120/2016 under Sections 498A, 406, 506, 34 IPC of Police Station Moti Nagar and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.