Sachin Vishwkarma & Ors. v. State of Delhi & Anr.

1. The second respondent was married to the first petitioner as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies on 29.11.2008. From out of their cohabitation, a male child named Kartikey took birth on 29.01.2010. On 15.10.2011, at the instance of the second respondent, first information report (FIR) no. 449/2011 was registered by police station Mehrauli, involving offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/325/506/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against her husband (the first petitioner), his father (the second petitioner) and his mother (the third petitioner). On conclusion of the investigation, 2018:DHC:6607 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. With the intervention of certain common acquaintances, the parties entered into a settlement whereunder they agreed to amicably resolve the dispute in terms of which they decided to approach the appropriate court for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent. The first petitioner agreed to pay to the second respondent a total sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards all her claims including maintenance of self and of child of the parties, he being in the care and custody of the mother (the second respondent). By the said agreement, they also resolved to approach this Court to have the afore-mentioned FIR quashed.

3. The petition, thus, has been moved before this court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr. PC seeking quashing of the FIR 449/2011 under Sections 498A, 406, 325, 506 and 34 IPC of Police Station Mehrauli.

4. The second respondent on being served with the notice has appeared with counsel. Pursuant to the directions, she has submitted reply sworn on 28.09.2018. By the said reply affidavit, she confirms the afore-mentioned terms of the settlement. She also acknowledges having received the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- by demand draft NO. 743433 dated 24.08.2012 issued by State Bank of India at Barasya Road, Bhopal (MP). The parties had also approached the Family Court by a petition for divorce by mutual consent, the first motion having been allowed on 12.04.2017 and the second motion having been granted by judgment dated 12.04.2018, thereby dissolving the marriage of the parties.

5. The second respondent, on being asked, has submitted her Aadhar Card, as proof of identity, self-attested copy whereof has been taken 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 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 the 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 non-compoundable 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:-

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 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.