Mohit & Ors v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr
Delhi High Court·19 Aug 2016·2016:DHC:5841
P. S. Teji
CRL.M.C. 1929/2016
2016:DHC:5841
criminalpetition_allowedSignificant
AI Summary
The Delhi High Court quashed a criminal FIR arising from matrimonial disputes under its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. following an amicable settlement between the parties.
Full Text
Translation output
Crl.M.C. 1929/2016 HIGH COURT OF DELHI CRL.M.C. 1929/2016 Date of Decision: August 19th , 2016 MOHIT & ORS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Abhay Kumar and Mr.Amitav Kumar, Advs.
VERSUS
THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR..... Respondent Through: Mr.Izhar Ahmad, APP. Ms.Seema Gupta, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, J.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Mohit, Sh. Surender, Smt. Lalita and Sh. Rohit @ Lucky for quashing of FIR No.917/2014 dated 18.07.2014, under Sections 323/341/328/34 IPC registered at Police Station Narela on the basis of the Settlement Agreement executed between the petitioner no.1 and respondent no. 2, namely, Smt. Preeti before Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation centre on 07.11.2014.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent no.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first informant in the FIR in question by her counsel.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is that on 13.07.2014 the complainant was beaten by the accused persons. She wrote a 2016:DHC:5841 complaint addressed to the DCP and kept it in her bag. However, the mother-in-law of the complainant read the same and therefore on 16.07.2014, the accused persons gave poison to the complainant. The complainant started shouting, as a result of which the neighbors gathered. Thereafter, the complaint was lodged by the complainant at the instance of which, the FIR in question was registered against the accused persons. During the pendency of the trial, the parties entered into a settlement.
4. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the Settlement Agreement, petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 have agreed that they shall take divorce by way of mutual consent. It is agreed that petitioner no.1 shall pay a sum of Rs. 2.25 Lacs towards full and final settlement of all the claims arising out of their marriage. It is agreed that the above mentioned amount shall be paid in the manner enunciated in the terms of the settlement agreement. It is agreed that Petitioner no.1 shall pay a sum of Rs.1.[5] Lacs to respondent no.2 at the time of quashing of the FIR in question. The parties have agreed that they have no other financial claim against each other with regard to any matter related to either marriage or divorce. Respondent no.2 has no claim against petitioner no.1 or against the father, mother or any other relative of petitioner no.1 as regards any marriage gifts, jewellery, stridhan, any material object etc. It is agreed that the complaint filed by respondent no.2 which has been recorded as DD No. 38A, shall be withdrawn by her. It is agreed that within two weeks of recording of the statement under the second motion for divorce by way of mutual consent, the petitioner no.1 shall move an appropriate application for seeking quashing of the FIR in question. The parties have agreed that they shall not file any civil or criminal case(s) against each other in future and that they have no further claims or demands against each other. Respondent no.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 27.04.2016 supporting this petition. In the affidavit, the Respondent no.2 stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of the respondent no.2 has been recorded in this regard in which she stated that she has entered into a compromise with the petitioners and has settled all the disputes with them. She further stated that she has no objection if the FIR in 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 of justice 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 of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”
6. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC
466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are as under:-
“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up
and lay down the following principles by which the
High Court would be guided in giving adequate
treatment to the settlement between the parties and
exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code
while accepting the settlement and quashing the
10,821 characters total
proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with
direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code
is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the
Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of
the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code,
the High Court has inherent power to quash the
criminal proceedings even in those cases which are
not compoundable, where the parties have settled the
matter between themselves. However, this power is to
be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement
and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal
proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases
would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 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 character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
7. The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The Respondent no.2 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question and 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 the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
8. The incorporation of inherent power under 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 of justice 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 Cr.P.C. 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 of law.
9. It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case of Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009 has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.
10. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in 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 of Haryana 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 Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon’ble Apex Court justified the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were noncompoundable. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that notwithstanding the fact that the offence under Section 328 IPC is a non-compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.
11. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of statement made by the respondent no.2, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.
12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.917/2014 dated 18.07.2014, under Sections 323/341/328/34 IPC registered at Police Station Narela and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.
13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
AUGUST 19, 2016
dd
Upgrade to Pro
This feature is available on the Pro plan. Upgrade to unlock full AI summaries, PDF downloads, and more.