Full Text
CRL.M.C. 1261/2016 & Crl.M.A. No.5431/2016
Date ofDecision: November 17^^, 2016 SANJAY MISHRA & ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kirti Madan, Advocate
Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
1. the petitipner^jihameiy, S]i||S||y^^i'shra and Smf. Kalpana Tiwari for quashing of FIR No.2^|)/a||03|d|ft^ 10.06.2003, upder Sections
498-A/4d,^ IPG registered alScSlice'iStation Pandav Nagif on the basis fife. # of a settlement between plWfbneY'n^Land respondent7no.2, namely, . m til •
Smt. AshaMsln^^^g^^^ /
JUDGMENT
2. Leamed'^4'^tonM^5!)s^^igJE^6|ecui^J/f0f respondent-State submitted that the"Yeip6n'^^|[o5i#F^^ the Court has been identified to be the complainan^fifst-informant ofthe FIR in question by SI Mahesh.
3. The factual matrix, in brief, of the present case is that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner no.l and the respondent no.2 on 26.04.2002 according to Hindu rites. It is the case of the complainant that the in-laws and husband ofthe complainant were dissatisfied with the dowry brought in by the complainant atthe time of marriage and that they would torture her for the same. The Crl.M.C. 1261/2016 Page 1of[8] 2016:DHC:9010 complainant left her matrimonial home, unable to bear the torture. Thereafter, the complainant got lodged the complaint following which the FIR in question was registered against the petitioners. During the pendency of the proceedings, the matter was settled between the accused persons and the respondent no.2.
4. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved with the intervention of the respectable persons of the society. As per the settlement, petitioner.nda andTrespondehTho.[2] agreed to take divorce by way of mutudl conseht. It is agreed''mat pdtitidper no.l shall pay a sum ofRs..4.88.oLaldiSftbwar^^ fmillsettlement of all the claims ari,sing^'''out of fh%4jmapi^^^^^ which includes permanent i( alimony, Mowry articles, 'i:s/F|m^$?fmaintenance (past;;! present and il (' i'l 11 future) etc. It is also agreedft^W t4'e above mentioned aniount shall be V; ji paid in th|manner enunc^:®n®>0ms of the settlement. It is also agreed that%e no.l shall pay asum of Rs. H^4teftojtespondentjn0?2^m^^^^ enunciated in the terms of the"Se||em|f%lhSg^^!^^ of the FIR in question and that respondent hbf2"shari cooperate with the petitioners for the same. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents ofthe aforesaid settlement. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out ofthe FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement ofthe respondent No.2 has been recorded in this regard in which she stated that she has entered into acompromise with the petitioners and has settled all the disputes with them. She further Crl.M.C. I261/20I[6] Page 2 of[8] £ stated thatshe has noobjection iftheFIRin question is quashed.
5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under "61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest ofjustice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends ofjustice,it is appropriate that crimjnalxcase^is^put to an end and if the answer to th^^#6ve^uq^ion(=s) islnihe;;uffirmative, the High Court shall^be w^ell|wi|iin^^^ to'quash the criminal proce|dihgs.'0^, ~.
6. The aforesaid dicl^§m^taf^ds|ceiCerated by|fhe""Apex Court in a recent judgmelit in ofPuhjab\(2014) 6 SCC l\ ^.
466. Thelfelevant observatibnsYWthe"Apex Court in Ncirinder Singh f V is! 5f tl •«! H fk '-f Vll- '•/ •) (Supra) are as under:- f i. f
Crl.M.C. 1261/2016 Page 3of[8]
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement andon that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends ofjustice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse ofthe process of any court.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil chai'acter, • particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or jarismg out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes ishould be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire' disputes among themselves. i V-. '•wV'SxV /!
7. The to'be exercised to prevent the abusp^-dTprpcess.o.fJaw®and to%te're;'the ends ofliustice. The respondent no^2>c:a^ees^3h^£ia^g^6f the FIR in question without any threat or coercion'oTundue influence and has stated that the matter has been settled out of her own free will. As the matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would' be an extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal proceedings between theparties are carried on. So, this Court is of the coiisidered [ I opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under ISection 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends ofjustice. Crl.M.C. 1261/2016 Page 4of[8]
8. The incorporation of inherent powerunder Section 482 Cr.P.C. is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provision of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is abused or misused; where the ends ofjustice cannot be secured; where the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid the causing of harassment to any person by using the provision of Gr.P.C. j or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery of justice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent the express provisions opawT
9. It is settled lawtnafthe inherent pdwer-ofthe High Court under Section 482/CriPtc. sh0.^MI)^^Se€r'sparingiy\:s<riie. Hon'bld' Apex ft ^ V \\ i! Court in the else of StateidfpMmamshtra through QBI v. Vikram Anatrai Doshi and Ors.^'Mt$1^^S0/O842/2O14 and in the case of {{ fl i. Inder Singh Goswami v. StflMMmtaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009 H i'has obseryed that powers,lffde^;SeCtA482 Cr.P.C. mu4t be exercised sparingly, %refulMaiM%fth^^ Jhen thd' Court % '••x'V'V'' ''y I comes to the conclusion'th^Jh^re wopldmemi'ariife'st injustice or there would be abuse such powerl is not exercised. Court would quasli'th'e'ptoceedings. '
10. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and thereforeIdo not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account ofcompromise would bring aboiit peace and would secure ends ofjustice, it shouldnot hesitate to quaslithem. In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstrubtion in Crl.M.C. 1261/2016 PagesiofS entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State ofHaryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 |i Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of I securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necpsary, section 320 Cr.P.C.^wohla not^befa bar'tb4he exercise of power of ii O-s;-""V.. • quashing. In^me hutshell, Ae^Hon'Me' A^^ex'-^ourt justified the exercise of# powers undeK^lSeStibhr-r^Sl Cr.P.C;# to quash the proceeding tOv-secure the#eh(ds^B®jisj}tce in viewkof the special facts where the offences were nonand circumstances of the ki Ki compounldable. Mill I In the light of thefafQresIid|%his Court is of/the view • M 111#"IK"A-if // |i notwithstanding th^vf^^th^lfel^oMaejpeeiibn 498A IPG is anoncompoundablesqfffn'qe, thei:e.shouldi)e^n[6] iin^lsdinfent in quashing the FIR under this section^lffheCohrt^i^^ satisfied that the facts and circumstances ofthe caseSb'Waifaht.
11. The Courts in India are now normally taking the view that endeavour should he taken to promote conciliation and secure \speedy settlement ofdisputes relating to marriage andfamily affairs such as, matrimonial disputes between the couple or/and between the v^ife and I her in-laws. India being a vast country naturally has large number of marriedpersons resulting into high numbers ofmatrimonial disputes due to differences in temperament, life-styles, opinions, thoughts etc. that Crl.M.C. 1261/2016 Page 6 of[8] v.. It) between such couples, due to which majority is coming to the Court to get redressal. In its 59*^ report, the Law Commission ofIndia had emphasized thatwhile dealing with disputes concerning thefamily, the Court ought to adopt an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings and that it should make reasonable efforts at settlementbefore the commencement ofthe trial. Further it is also the constitutional mandate for speedy disposal of such disputes and to grant quick justice to the litigants. But, our Courts arealready pjf'^eFburdeped^duef^pm oflarge number of ^ 'i! cases because M wKicfr^it becomes dijficulhforKspeedy disposal of matrimonialif^isp§.t%s alpm^y^jisfth^fmaM are 'mainly between tUe ht^band andfmM^iffidhdfp m'atters are involved, //. "? k\fe4AMMw.7.. T.\\_ _,1... in such disputes, so, it fe^Iihes^c^^ciliatory procedure to bring a UMB settlement between them. Mdyla:ddy's, mediation has played \ II important^role in settlm'g^p^^ especiallyjj matrimonial disputes aiid hasfyi0dediSgS^djke^iItisi jMl&Court must exercise its inherent poweiQl^l^ ^'^4^ y^t an end matrimonial litigaiio:^$^k^^iM^^fU^^ the parties can live peacefully.
12. Since the subject matter ofthis FIR is essentially matrimonial which now stands mutually and amicably settled between the therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the question would be an exercise in futility and is a fit case for thi^ Court to exercise its inherentjurisdiction.
13. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of statement made by the respondent No.2 and the compromise arrived at between ! a very I to the parties, FIR in Crl.M.C. 1261/2016 Page 7 of[8] II the parties, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an ei|d and proceedings emanatingthereupon needto be quashed. |
14. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.26p/2003 dated 10.06.2003, under Sections 498-A/406 IPG registered at|Police Station Pandav Nagar and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed againstthe petitioners.
15. Thispetition is accordingly disposed of.
16. Application Crl.M.A. No.^1/2016 is also disposed of. /Si'' NOVEMBERa?, 2016/td 17 7". LI i,l \\ ^ X"C \\ Crl.M.C. 1261/2016 mm. i)!f Ofir <t"V^ V-. // % '<5:5.— *- //