Abhishik Vyas & Ors. v. State & Anr

1. Exemption allowed,subjectto alljust exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of. W.P.(CRL)695/2016

1. ITe present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution ofIndia read with Section 482 CrPC praying for quashing ofFlRNoT98/2013,under Sections 498-A/406/34IPC P.S.Pandav Nagar, Delhi, on the basis ofsettlement amved at between the parties.

2. Briefly stating the facts ofthe present case are that Respondent No.2 got married to Petitioner No.l on 08.11.2011 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. It is further mentioned in the petition that due to some W.P.(CRL)695/2016 / of[4] 2016:DHC:9096 misunderstanding and temperamental differences, the Petitioner No.l and RespondentNo.2 could not live together and started living separately 1hereafter respondent No.2 filed a criminal complaint against the Petitioners, on the basis of which FIR in question was registered. It is mentioned in the petition that during the pendency of above proceedings, the parties have settled the matter before the Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and copy of the said settlement dated 13.08.2014 has been placed on record as Annexure-B.

3. In terms of settlement arrived at between the parties.Petitioner No.1 was to pay a total sum of Rs.6,25,000/- lacs (Rs.Six Lacs twenty five thousand only)to Respondent No.2 towards full and final settlement of all her claims. It is mentioned in the petition that petitioner No.l had already paid Rs.4,25,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs twenty five thousand only) to Respondent No.2.

4. Respondent No.2 is present in person and submits that she has settled the matter with the Petitioners before the Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and in terms of said settlement, today she has received Demand Draft for a sum of ^2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lacs only)from the Petitioners. Respondent No.2 further submits that she has no objection ifthe FIR in question is quashed qua the Petitioners.

5. The FIR registered against the present Petitioners is for committing the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC. Offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC is non-compoundable offence. In the decision in the case of Gian Singh v State ofPunjab & Anr. 2012 (9) SCALE 257,the three Judges Bench ofthe Supreme Court dealing with the issue ofquashing ofFIR has observed as under:- W.P.(CRL)695/2016 Page 2of[4] "57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can he summarised thus: thepower ofthe High Courtin quashinga criminal proceeding orFIR or complaintin exercise ofits inherentjurisdiction is distinct and differentfrom the power given to a criminal courtfor compounding the offences Under Section 320 ofthe Code. Inherent power is ofwideplenitude with no statutoiy limitation hut it has to he exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in suchpower viz;(i) to secure the ends ofjustice or (ii) to prevent abuse ofthe process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminalproceeding or complaint or F.I.R may he exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute woidd depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can he prescribed. However, before exercise ofsuch power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, n dacoity, etc. cannot he fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim'sfanuly and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Actor the offences committed bypublic servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civilfavour stand on different footingfor thepurposes ofquashing,particularly the offences arising from,commercial,financial, mercantile, civil,partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or thefamily disputes where the wrong is basicallyprivate or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category ofcases. High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because ofthe compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility ofconviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused, to him by not quashing the criminal case despite fiill and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 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 proceeding or continuation ofthe criminalproceeding would tantamountto abuse of W.P.(CRL)695/2016 Page 3of[4] rprocess oflaw despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends ofjustice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and ifthe answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within itsjurisdiction to quash the criminalproceeding."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners and complainant submit that after the matter in dispute has been amicably settled between the parties, no puipose would be served in prosecuting the petitioners, therefore the FIR in question and criminal proceedings emanating therefrom may be quashed.

7. In view ofthe legal position laid down in Gian Singh's case(Supra) and amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, I am of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, which will only be an exercise in ftitile and wastage ofprecious time ofthe Court.

8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.198/2013, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPG P.S.Pandav Nagar, Delhi and consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. The parties shall abide by the terms and conditions of the full and final settlement anived at between the parties before the Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi copy ofwhich is placed on record as Annexure-B. Order dasti.

PRATIBHA RAT MARCH 02,2016 'pg/da\.^