Full Text
CRL.M.C. 133/2018, HUSSAIN MUKADAM & ORS Petitioners '
' ' Through: Mr. Karanpreet Singh, Advocate.
• • yersus ' •
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev.Sabharwal, APP for State
, ' • . with ASI Ajay Pal, CAW Cell East.
Respondent no. 2 in person.
06.03.2018 , ,Vide the present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the , FIR .No.76/2016, PS Mayur. Vihar, Phase-I under Sections
498-A/406/34 of the Indiaii Penal Code, 1860 submitting to the effect that a settlement has been arrived at between the petitioners and the respondent no. 2 andthe marriage between the petitionerno. 1 andthe respondent no. 2 has since been dissolved vide a deed of Mubarat
(dated 25.11.2017: and in terms of the compromise cum settlement
" deed, i.e. Ex. CW4/B,,'a,total sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- was to be paid to the respondent no. 2 by the .petitioners of which a sum of Rs.
8,50,000/- was received by the respondent no. 2 previously and a balance sum of Rs. 8,50,000/-is payable today.
The Investigating Officer ofthe case present in the Court has identified the petitioner no. 1Sh. Hussain Mukadam, petitioner no. 2
Sh. Liyakat Abdul Gani Mukadam, petitioner no. 3 Hurriya
Mukadam, petitioner no. 4 Ayesha Mukadam, petitioner no. 5 Zakir
Gani Mukadam and petitioner no. 6 Abdul Gaflir Mukadam as being
„ the six accused arrayed -in FIR No.76/2016, under Sections
498-A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, PS Mayur Vihar, I'hase-I. He has also identified the respondent ho. 2, Ms. Rifaut being the complainant of the said FIR present in court today. Vide, proceedings dated 11.01.2018, the State was directed to conduct a verification in relation to the stated factum of execution of Deed of
' Mubarat, copy of which is submitted on the record qua divorce between the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 in relation to which it has been submitted by. the Investigating Officer that on verification he has ascertained the factum of divorce between the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 and has also identified the
.signatories to the said mutual divorce by way of Mubarat who have signed as witnesses on behalf of the petitioner no. 1, i.e., Liyakat
Abdul Gani Mukadam brother of the petitioner no. 1 arrayed as petitioner no. 2 and Hurriya Mukadam 'mother of the petitioner ho. 1 arrayed as petitioner no. 3 present today in Court. He has also identified Ms. Ishrat Jahan mother of the respondent no. 2 and
Mohammad,Mohsin brother ofthe respondent no. 2 who are also the signatories to the divorce by Mubarat.
•7
Ms. Ishrat Jahan and Mohammad Mohsin, mother and brother ofthe respondent no. 2 respectively have brought their identity proofs and have affirmed the deed of Mubarat/mutual divorce dated
25.11.2017 which bears their signatures at points A & B respectively on Ex.CW2/A.' ^ ,' ' , • '
The respondent no.2 in her examination on oath by the Court has affirmed having sworn her affidavit ex. CW4/A annexed to the petition voluntarily ofher own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter and also testified to having signed the deed of Mubarat/mutual divorce'Ex. CW2/A with her signatures thereon at point Cwhich she states that she has signed voluntarily. •She has also testified to having signed the settlement document dated 25.11.2017, copy of which is on the record as Ex. CW4/B which she stated that she has signed voluntarily. , The respondent no. 2 has affirmed the factum of dissolution of her marriage with the petitioner no. 1 vide the deed of Mubarat Ex.
CW2/A and has testified to the effect that there is no child bom out of, wedlock between the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 2. She has also testified to the effect that in terms of the settlement, she has received a sum of Rs. 8,50,000/- previously of the total settlement amount of Rs. 17,00,000/- and the balance sum of Rs. 8,50,000/- has been received by her now today in the Court during the course ofthe present proceedings vide a demand draft bearing no. 049550 dated , 09.01.2018 drawn on the ICICI Bank in her favour, photocopy of
CRL.M.C. 133/2018 . Page 3 of7. which is on the record as Ex. CW4/G. She has also stated that there are now, no claims ,of hers left against the petitioners and now she does not oppose the prayer made by, the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR No.76/2016, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, I860, I^S MayUr Vihar, Phase-I nor does she want them to be punished in relation thereto. She has further testified to the effect that she is a graduate and she has also done the course of web designing and had worked previously with the Mercedes Benz and had an experience of seven years inthe automobile Industry.
On behalf of the State, there is no opposition to the prayermade by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR in question in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and the respondent
. no. 2;
As' apparently, the FIR in question emanates from a matrimonial discord between the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 which has been dissolved vide a deed of Mubarat o'n 25.11.2017 as indicated to be executed between them, which document is also brother and mother of the respondent no. 2 have also affirmed having put their signatures, there appears no reason to disbelieve the statement of the respondent no. 2 as also the level of her education 1
. indicates that she is capable of understanding the implications of her statement made by her that she has arrived at the settlement between the petitioners voluntarily ofher own accord and does not oppose the
Thus, for the maintenance of peace and harmony between the parties, it is considered essential to put a quietus to the litigation in view of the observations in the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. StateofPunjab.& Another, (20\2) 10 SCC 303, to the effect: -
"58. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing thatseriously 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 ofmental depravity under IPC or offences ofmoral 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 and predominantly bear civilflavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim havesettledall 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 itis
CRL.M.C. 133/2018 . ° Page 5of7
' V•
, satined that on theface ofsuch settlement, there is. ^ hardly any likelihood ofthe,offender being convicted andby not quashing the criminalproceedings, justice \ • shall becasualty and ends ofjUsticie shall be defeated.
The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each casewill depend onitsownfacts and ho hard-and-fast ;
/ category can be prescribed" [R^fer tO: B.S. Joslii,
ORDER
(2003) 4SCQ\675; mhil Merchant 677andManojSharma,(20()8)j6SCCl,y^ ' - (emphasissupplied) - ' diYidi jitendra Ra0uvanshi & Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi &Am. (2013) 4 SCC 58, wherein the Supreme Court in respect of'the matrimonial disputes has specificaUy held as' \ -fbilows:-; r, • • ' "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! Evert, if the offences are, "nqn-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial / disputes and the CoUH is satisfiedthat thepaHies have - settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice. Section 320 ofthe Code would not be a bar to the exercise ofpower of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminarproceedings,i,:, 16. there has been m outburst of matrimonial; disputes in recent timesi They institution ofmarriage X, occupies a.h important place and it has an impoi^tant ' rdl& to play in the society. Therefore, every effort,. should be made in the-interest of\the individuals iit \ order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. Ifthepartiesponder over their defaults CRL.M.C. 133/2018' Page 6'of-7 and terminate their disputes amicably bymutual agreement instead offigltkng it out in a court oflaw, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in. exercising their extraordinaryJurisdiction. It is trite to state thai the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the Court is convinced, on the basis ofmaterial on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse ofprocess ofcourt or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed...." • > (emphasis supplied) it,isthus considei:ed appropriate inthe interest ofjustice that the >prayer made, by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR No.76/2016, PS Mayur Vihar, Phase-I under Sections 498-A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom is dlowed and thus the FIR No.76/2016, PS Mayur Vihar, Phase-l' and all consequential proceedirigs emanating, therefrom against the petitioner no. J' Sh. 'Hussain Mukadam, ' petitioner no, 2 Sh. Liyakat Abdul-Gani Mukadam, petitioner no. 3 Hurriya Mukadam, petitioner no. 4Ayesha Mukadam, petitioner no. 5 ~ Zakir Gani Mukadarn and petitioner no. 6Abdul Gafur Mukadam are quashed. 1 • ^ •-,The'petition is disposed of. ' ANU MALHOTRA, J MARCH 06, 2018 NC, !.' •