Mohd. Nadeem & Ors v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr

1. By way of these writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioners are seeking quashing ofcase FIR No.641/2015 under Sections 498-A/406/34IPC& W.P.(CRL)Nos.743/2016&744/2016 Page 1 of[4] V 2016:DHC:9097 Section 4 of D.P.Act registered at PS Khajuri Khas and FIR No.999/2015 under Sections 356/379 IPC registered at PS Farsh Bazar on the basis of settlement.

2. Briefly stating the faets ofthe present case are that Respondent No.2 got married to Petitioner No.l on 10''" February,2014 according to Muslim rites and eustom and a male child was bom out of the said wedlock. It is further mentioned in the petition that the Petitioner No.l and Respondent No.2 could not live together and started living separately with effeet from lO"" Oetober, 2014. After the separation, on IB'*" June, 2015, Respondent No.2filed a criminal complaint againstthe Petitioners,on the basis ofwhich FlRNo.641/2015 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC & Section 4 ofD.P.Act was registered at PS Khajuri Khas. Thereafter, on 19''' December, 2015, respondent No.2filed another complaint against the petitioners,on the basis ofwhich FIR No.999/2015 under Sections 356/379IPG was registered atPS Farsh Bazar. It is mentioned in the petition that with the intervention ofthe elders and respectable persons ofthe society, the matter has been amicably settled betweenthe petitioners and respondentNo.2on 12"'Febmary,2016.

3. Along with the petitions, petitioners have also placed on record copy of the Compromise Deed/Talaknama dated 12'" February, 2016 as Annexure-B.

4. In terms of full and final settlement arrived at between the parties, today leamed counsel for the Petitioners has handed over to Respondent No.2 a pay order for a sum of?2,00,000/-.

5. Respondent No.2 is present in person and submits that she has settled the matter with the Petitioners and in terms ofsaid settlement,today she has received pay order for asum of?2,00,000/-from the Petitioners. W.P.(CRL)Nos.743/2016 & 744/2016 Page 2of[4] 0- Respondent No.2 further submits that she has no objection ifthe FIRs in question are quashed quathe Petitioners.

6. The FIRsregistered againstthe presentPetitioners arefor committing the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/406/34/356/379 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Offence punishable under Sections 356/498-A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are noncompoundable offences. Inthe decision in the case ofGian Singh vStateof Punjab & Am. 2012 (9) SCALE 257, the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court dealing with the issue ofquashing of FIR has observed as under:- "57. The position that emergesfrom the above discussion can be summarisedthus: thepower ofthe High Courtin quashing a 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 statutory limitation but it has to be exercisedin accord with the guideline engraftedin suchpower viz;(i) to secure the ends ofjustice or(ii) to prevent abuse ofthe process of any Court. In what casespower to quash the criminalproceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be 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, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim'sfamily andthe offender have settledthe dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim andoffender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Actor the offences committed bypublicservants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly andpre-dominatingly civilfavourstandon different W,P.(CRL)Nos.743/2016&744/2016 Page3of[4] footingfor thepurposes ofquashing,particularly the offences arising from commercial,financial, mercantile, civil,partnership orsuch like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry,etc. or thefamily disputes where the wrongis basicallyprivate or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category ofcases. High Court may quash criminal proceedings ifin 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 full 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 ofjustice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation ofthe criminalproceeding wouldtantamount to abuse of process 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."

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 futile and wastage ofprecious time ofthe Court.

8. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and FIR No.641/2015 under Sections 498-A/406/34IPG & Section 4 ofD.P.Act registered atPS Khajuri Khas and FIR No.999/2015 under Sections 356/379 IPG registered at PS Farsh Bazar are hereby quashed. The Parties shall abide by the terms and conditions of the full and final settlement arrived at between the parties, copy ofwhich is placed on record as Annexure-B. Order dasti. n MARCH 08,2016/ ' W.P.(CRL)Nos.743/2016&744/2016 RATI ARA Page4of[4]