Full Text
Translation output
-/•
$-82 & 50 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 2286/2018
ROHIT GANDHI & ORS Petitioner
Through: Mr. J.C. Mahindro with Mr. Shubham Aggarwal, Advocate.
$-82 & 50 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 2286/2018
ROHIT GANDHI & ORS Petitioner
Through: Mr. J.C. Mahindro with Mr. Shubham Aggarwal, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE & ANR Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State with ASI Hari Ram, PS Rajouri
Garden.
R-2 in person.
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State with ASI Hari Ram, PS Rajouri
Garden.
R-2 in person.
CRL.M.C. 2243/2018
MS SAVITA TANDON GANDHI & ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr. M.A. Arunesh & Ms. Nidhi' Mohan Prarashar, Advocates.
MS SAVITA TANDON GANDHI & ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr. M.A. Arunesh & Ms. Nidhi' Mohan Prarashar, Advocates.
VERSUS
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) &ANR Respondents
Through: Mr. Panna La! Sharma, APP for State with ASI Ramkesh, PS Rajouri
Garden.
R-2 in person.
Through: Mr. Panna La! Sharma, APP for State with ASI Ramkesh, PS Rajouri
Garden.
R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
01.05.2018 Vide the present petition CRL.M.C. 2286/2018 filed by the petitioner no. 1 Rohit Gandhi , petitioner no. 2 Subhash Gandhi, petitioner no. 3 Raj
Gandhi andpetitioner no. 4 Rahul Gandhi seek quashing of FIRNo.361/15, CRL.M.C. 2286/2018 pagenp. lof7
2018:DHC:8455 PS Rajouri Garden, under Sections 323/342/354/354A/498-A/506/34 ofthe
Indian Penal Code, ,1860 lodged on the complaint of the respondent no.2 who is arrayed as petitioner no.l in CRL.M.C. 2243/2018 in which the petitioner no.3 in CRL.M.C. 2286/2018, is the respondent no.2 being the complainant of FIR No. 476/15, PS Rajouri Garden, under Sections
323/341/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered on her complaint against Ms. Savita Tandon Gandhi, Mr; Deepak Tandon and Mr. Hemant Tandon. Vide both the petitions, the petitioners seek quashing of respective
^ FIRs submitting to the effect that asettlement has since been arrived at between the parties in relation to which the mediation settlement as arrived at the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 23.02.2017 is placed on records of CRL.M.C. 2286/2018 as Ex.CW2/B as also on the records of CRL.M.C. 2243/2018 on which Mrs. Savita Tanddn Gandhi has identified her signature thereon and Smt. Raj Gandhi has identified the signature of her son Shri Rohit Gandhi who has entered into a settlement on her behalf and Smt. Raj Gandhi has identified her signatures on letter of authority executed by her in favour of her son Shri Rohit Gandhi placed on records of CRL.M.C. 2243/2018 as Ex. CW2/C. It has been submitted by the
^ complainants ofboth the FIRs, FIRNo.361/15, PS Rajouri Garden and FIR
No. 476/15,-PS Rajouri Garden that there is no opposition to the prayer made by the petitioners of eachpetitionseeking quashing of the said FIRs in question and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties as Ex. CW2/B placed on records of both the petitions.
Learned APP for the State submits qua both the petitions that in view
01.05.2018 Vide the present petition CRL.M.C. 2286/2018 filed by the petitioner no. 1 Rohit Gandhi , petitioner no. 2 Subhash Gandhi, petitioner no. 3 Raj
Gandhi andpetitioner no. 4 Rahul Gandhi seek quashing of FIRNo.361/15, CRL.M.C. 2286/2018 pagenp. lof7
2018:DHC:8455 PS Rajouri Garden, under Sections 323/342/354/354A/498-A/506/34 ofthe
Indian Penal Code, ,1860 lodged on the complaint of the respondent no.2 who is arrayed as petitioner no.l in CRL.M.C. 2243/2018 in which the petitioner no.3 in CRL.M.C. 2286/2018, is the respondent no.2 being the complainant of FIR No. 476/15, PS Rajouri Garden, under Sections
323/341/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered on her complaint against Ms. Savita Tandon Gandhi, Mr; Deepak Tandon and Mr. Hemant Tandon. Vide both the petitions, the petitioners seek quashing of respective
^ FIRs submitting to the effect that asettlement has since been arrived at between the parties in relation to which the mediation settlement as arrived at the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 23.02.2017 is placed on records of CRL.M.C. 2286/2018 as Ex.CW2/B as also on the records of CRL.M.C. 2243/2018 on which Mrs. Savita Tanddn Gandhi has identified her signature thereon and Smt. Raj Gandhi has identified the signature of her son Shri Rohit Gandhi who has entered into a settlement on her behalf and Smt. Raj Gandhi has identified her signatures on letter of authority executed by her in favour of her son Shri Rohit Gandhi placed on records of CRL.M.C. 2243/2018 as Ex. CW2/C. It has been submitted by the
^ complainants ofboth the FIRs, FIRNo.361/15, PS Rajouri Garden and FIR
No. 476/15,-PS Rajouri Garden that there is no opposition to the prayer made by the petitioners of eachpetitionseeking quashing of the said FIRs in question and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties as Ex. CW2/B placed on records of both the petitions.
Learned APP for the State submits qua both the petitions that in view
CRL.M.C. 2286/2018 v page no. 2 of? of the settlement arrived at between the parties, there is no opposition to the prayer made by the petitioners seeking quashing of both the FIRs in question.
In terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties at the Delhi
High Court Mediation &Conciliation Centre on 23.02.2017, a total sum of
Rs.24 lakhs has been agreed to be paid by the petitioners to. CRL.M.C.
2286/2018 to Savita Tandon Gandhi, of which a sum of Rs. 16 lakhs has already been received by her previously and a balance sum of Rs. 8 lakhs has been handed overto her by the petitioner today in the Court during the course ofproceedings in CRL.M.C. 2286/2018 vide a demant draft bearing no. 864736 dated 19.02.2018 drawn on the PNB Bank in favour of Savita
Tandon Gandhi, photocopy ofwhich is on the record as Ex.CW2/C. During the course of her testimony, Smt. Savita Tandon Gandhi testified to the effect that apart from the said amount of Rs.8 lakhs, there are two National
Savings Certificate, one for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and other for a sum of Rs.
10,000/- bearing nos. 16355 and 16354 respectively in the name of Shri
Subhash Gandhi which of maturity are to be released given by Shri Subhash
Gandhi to her. Shri Subhash Gandhi who is present as the petitioner no.2 in
In terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties at the Delhi
High Court Mediation &Conciliation Centre on 23.02.2017, a total sum of
Rs.24 lakhs has been agreed to be paid by the petitioners to. CRL.M.C.
2286/2018 to Savita Tandon Gandhi, of which a sum of Rs. 16 lakhs has already been received by her previously and a balance sum of Rs. 8 lakhs has been handed overto her by the petitioner today in the Court during the course ofproceedings in CRL.M.C. 2286/2018 vide a demant draft bearing no. 864736 dated 19.02.2018 drawn on the PNB Bank in favour of Savita
Tandon Gandhi, photocopy ofwhich is on the record as Ex.CW2/C. During the course of her testimony, Smt. Savita Tandon Gandhi testified to the effect that apart from the said amount of Rs.8 lakhs, there are two National
Savings Certificate, one for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and other for a sum of Rs.
10,000/- bearing nos. 16355 and 16354 respectively in the name of Shri
Subhash Gandhi which of maturity are to be released given by Shri Subhash
Gandhi to her. Shri Subhash Gandhi who is present as the petitioner no.2 in
CRL.M.C.2286 /2018 has testified to the effect that he has to sign the said.
NSCs on maturity. The marriage between Shri Rohit Gandhi petitioner no.l to CRL.M.C.2286 /2018 and Ms. Savita Tandon Gandhi respondent no.2 to"
NSCs on maturity. The marriage between Shri Rohit Gandhi petitioner no.l to CRL.M.C.2286 /2018 and Ms. Savita Tandon Gandhi respondent no.2 to"
CRL.M.C.2286 /2018 has been dissolved vide decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13(B)(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide decree dated 19.01.2018 of the Court of the learned ASJ, Family Court
(West), Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in HMANo.82/2018, copy of which
(West), Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in HMANo.82/2018, copy of which
CRL.M.C. 2286/2018 , ' page no. 3 of 7 is on the record as Ex. CW2/D. It is apparent that the said No.361/15, PS
Rajouri Garden has been registered due to amatrimonial discord between
Mr. Rohit Gandhi and Ms. Savita Tandon Gandhi, which has apparently since been dissolved vide dissolution of marriage between them vide decree of divorce, copy ofwhich decree sheet is on the record as Ex. CW2/D and all disputes between the parties having been settled in view ofthe mediation settlement and in view ofthe undertaking ofMr. Subhash Gandhi that he has to sign the NSCs on maturity, it is considered appropriate to put aquietus to
^ the litigation between the parties, the FIR No.361/15, PS Rajouri Garden, under Sections 323/342/354 /354A/498-A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for maintenance of peace and harmony between the parties and for well-being of the minor child bom of the wedlock between Mr. Rohit Gandhi and Ms. Savita Tandon Gandhi who is stated to be in the custody of the respondent•no.2, Savita Tandon Gandhi.
Likewise as apparently the mediation settlement entered into between the parties, copy of which is placed on record as Ex.CW2/B on the records ofCRL.M.C. 2243/2018 indicates that it is an affirmed settlement even in
X relation to FIR No. 476/15, PS Rajouri Garden, under Sections i 323/341/506/34 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 ofall sections which areper se compoundable under Section 320 Cr.PC, 1973 and as there is no reason to disbelieve the statement ofSmt. Raj Gandhi nor the statement ofMrs. Savita
Tandon Gandhi that they have both arrived at a settlement voluntarily of their own accord without any duress, coercion orpressure from any quarter and that they understand the implications of their statements inasmuch as
Savita Tandon Gandhi has testified to the effect that she has done B.Com
Rajouri Garden has been registered due to amatrimonial discord between
Mr. Rohit Gandhi and Ms. Savita Tandon Gandhi, which has apparently since been dissolved vide dissolution of marriage between them vide decree of divorce, copy ofwhich decree sheet is on the record as Ex. CW2/D and all disputes between the parties having been settled in view ofthe mediation settlement and in view ofthe undertaking ofMr. Subhash Gandhi that he has to sign the NSCs on maturity, it is considered appropriate to put aquietus to
^ the litigation between the parties, the FIR No.361/15, PS Rajouri Garden, under Sections 323/342/354 /354A/498-A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for maintenance of peace and harmony between the parties and for well-being of the minor child bom of the wedlock between Mr. Rohit Gandhi and Ms. Savita Tandon Gandhi who is stated to be in the custody of the respondent•no.2, Savita Tandon Gandhi.
Likewise as apparently the mediation settlement entered into between the parties, copy of which is placed on record as Ex.CW2/B on the records ofCRL.M.C. 2243/2018 indicates that it is an affirmed settlement even in
X relation to FIR No. 476/15, PS Rajouri Garden, under Sections i 323/341/506/34 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 ofall sections which areper se compoundable under Section 320 Cr.PC, 1973 and as there is no reason to disbelieve the statement ofSmt. Raj Gandhi nor the statement ofMrs. Savita
Tandon Gandhi that they have both arrived at a settlement voluntarily of their own accord without any duress, coercion orpressure from any quarter and that they understand the implications of their statements inasmuch as
Savita Tandon Gandhi has testified to the effect that she has done B.Com
CRL.M.C. 2286/2018 page no. 4of7 and she works in a travel agency and Smt. Raj Gandhi has testified to the effect that she is a graduate and previously used to work as a PS in the
Railways and has since retired.
On behalf of the State there is no opposition to the prayer made by the petitioners of both the petitions CRL.M.C. 2243/2018 CRL.M.C.2286
/2018, in view thereof, it is considered appropriate to allow the said petitions in of FIR No.361/15, PS Rajouri Garden, under Sections
323/342/354/354A/498-A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and FIR
No. 476/15, PS Rajouri Garden, under Sections 323/341/506/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioners therein and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners, in view of the observations in the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Gian Singh v^. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, to the effect.
Railways and has since retired.
On behalf of the State there is no opposition to the prayer made by the petitioners of both the petitions CRL.M.C. 2243/2018 CRL.M.C.2286
/2018, in view thereof, it is considered appropriate to allow the said petitions in of FIR No.361/15, PS Rajouri Garden, under Sections
323/342/354/354A/498-A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and FIR
No. 476/15, PS Rajouri Garden, under Sections 323/341/506/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioners therein and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners, in view of the observations in the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Gian Singh v^. State of Punjab & 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 not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes, have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious 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 of Corruption 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
CRL.M.C. 2286/2018 page no. 5 of? civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out ofntatrimony, 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 the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any
I 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 see 677 and Manoj Sharma,
I 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 see 677 and Manoj Sharma,
ORDER
(2008) 16 SCC l.Y and in view ofthe observations in the verdict ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr.
"15. In our view^ it is the duty of the 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 arnicably and without any pressure, we hold thatfor the purpose ofsecuring ends of justice. Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminalproceedings.
16. There has been an outburst ofmatrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the CRL.M.C. 2286/2018, page no. 6 of[7] V i > interest ofthe individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life andlive peacefully. Ifthe parties ponder over their defaults andterminate 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 extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the Court isconvinced, 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 proceedings oughtto bequashed...." (emphasis supplied) are quashed. Mr. Subhash Gandhi shall remainbound by his statementmade today. ANU MALHOTRA, J MAY 01, 2018 vm CRL.M.C. 2286/2018 page no. 7 of[7]