Sandeep Sinha & Anr. v. State of NCT, Delhi & Ors.

1. The marriage of the third respondent with the first petitioner was agreed upon sometime in July, 2011, a formal engagement ceremony having been held on 03.07.2011, the marriage having been fixed to be held on 19.02.2012. Some disputes arose including on account of allegation of illicit demand for dowry and against such backdrop first information report (FIR) no. 92/2013 was lodged with the Crime Against Women Cell on 13.06.2013 by the second respondent, he being the father of the third respondent, the investigation having been taken up into offences allegedly committed 2018:DHC:6472 under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 by the petitioners, the second being the mother of the first petitioner. On conclusion of investigation, police filed report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. on which cognizance is stated to have been taken, the matter being pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate.

2. The parties were referred to Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre where they entered into a settlement agreement dated 17.01.2018. In terms of the said agreement, both sides have agreed to bury the hatchet, including by approaching this court for quashing of the aforementioned FIR, the first petitioner having agreed to pay to the second respondent a total amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as full and final settlement of all his claims as also those of the third respondent, this in the form of two instalments, first payable on 22.01.2018 and the second on or before 15.02.2018. The third respondent has since got married elsewhere and she has authorised her father i.e. the second respondent to enter into the said settlement and also to receive the settlement amount. Under instructions of the court, the Station House Officer of the concerned police station has verified the letter of authority and a confirmatory report in this regard has come on record on 12.09.2018.

3. The petitioners today tender to the second respondent who is present in person with counsel on his own behalf and also on behalf of the third respondent, two demand drafts, they bearing nos.501150 dated 05.05.2018 and no.501151 dated 18.01.2018 (both revalidated from time to time lastly on 04.09.2018), drawn in favour of the second respondent on ICICI Bank, each in the sum of Rs.75,000/-. The second respondent has handed over an acknowledgement of receipt of the said demand drafts and submits no objection to the prayer for quashing.

4. Offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 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 No. 92/2013 of police station Crime Against Women Cell, under Section 406 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.