Sominder Singh Rawat & Ors. v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

1. The second respondent was married to the first petitioner as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 12.02.2010. On 03.04.2014, she Lodged First Information Report (FIR) no.265/2014 with Police Station Safdarjung Enclave, alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 34 of the Indian Code, 1860 (IPC) against her husband (first petitioner), his father (second petitioner) and his mother 2018:DHC:7116 (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 file of the Metropolitan Magistrate.

2. The parties were referred to the process of mediation and counseling where they agreed to resolve the matter by entering into a settlement dated 01.05.2017 in terms of which they were to approach, as per the timelines indicated, the appropriate forum for obtaining a decree of divorce, they also having agreed, inter alia, for criminal case arising out of the aforementioned FIR to be sought to be quashed.

3. The petition has thus been filed invoking the inherent power and jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Cr. PC, seeking quashing of the FIR no.265/2014, under Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC of Police Station Safdarjung Enclave.

4. The second respondent, on being served with the notice, has appeared with counsel. Pursuant to the directions given on the previous date, she has submitted her affidavit. She is present in person before the court with the counsel and upon being so directed has produced her Aadhar card to confirm her identity, its self attested copy having been taken on record. By the affidavit sworn on 29.10.2018, the second respondent has confirmed that she has settled all the disputes with the petitioners in terms of the settlement dated 01.05.2017. At the hearing, both sides confirmed that the parties had earlier approached the Family Court by petitions under Section 13 B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, their marriage having been dissolved by a decree of divorce granted on 25.11.2017 by the Principal Judge, Family Court of North District.

5. In terms of the settlement, the petitioners were to pay and the second respondent was to receive a total amount of Rs.8.[5] Lakhs. She has acknowledged having already received Rs.[6] Lakhs, the balance being Rs.2.[5] Lakhs. At the hearing, a demand draft bearing no.502967 dated 30.10.2018 issued by ICICI Bank in favour of the second respondent in the sum of Rs.2.[5] Lakhs has been handed over to the second respondent by the petitioners, its photocopy having been placed on record.

6. 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 an amicable resolution arrived at by them in the facts and circumstances noted above.

7. The scope and ambit of the power conferred on this court by Section 482 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)

8. 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.”

9. 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.”

10. 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:- “57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.”

11. 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:-

12. 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 bona fide on the part of any side, denial of the prayer for quashing the criminal case would restore acrimony rather than bring about peace. Allowing continuation of the criminal action would be fruitless and clearly an abuse of judicial process.