Jitender Kushwaha v. State & Anr.

1. The present writ petitions have been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 ofConstitution ofIndia for quashing ofcase FIRNo.254/2011, W.P.(Crl)Nos.216&234of2016 Page I of[5] 2016:DHC:9094 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Neb Sarai, Delhi and FIR No.33/2013, under Sections 471/420/467/468/34 IPC, P.S. Vasant Vihar, Delhi on the basis ofsettlement.

2. Brieffacts, as stated by the Petitioner in the present petitions, are that on 3"^ July, 2010,the marriage ofthe Petitioner and Respondent no.2 was solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. However, no child was bom out of the said wedlock. That due to some temperamental differences, the Petitioner & the Respondent no. 2 could not continue with their matrimonial tie & the Respondent no. 2 left the company of the Petitioner on 6"^ November,2010. On 19^'' October,2011,respondent no.2 made a complaint against the petitioner before PS Neb Sarai,South District, Delhi and the Police later on registered an FIR No.254/2011 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC. However, in FIR No.254/2011, after failing to get bail from Metropolitan Magistrate, the petitioner finally got bail on 13"^ February, 2012 from this Court. Thereafter, on 6''' Febmary, 2013, respondent No.2 made another complaint against the petitioner alleging that petitioner sold the bike given to him at the time ofmarriage through forged signature and the said complaint was later on registered into FIR No.33/2013 under Section 420/467/468/471/34 IPC.

3. Teamed counselfor the petitioner submits thaton 15"^ October,2015, the marriage ofthe Petitioner and Respondent no.2 has been dissolved by mutual consent. A copy ofthe decree dissolving the marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 has been annexed with the petition as Annexure'P-5' and in term ofsaid settlement,the Petitioner is handing over ?3lakhs to the Respondentno.2-complainant by way ofpay order,today in Court,a copy ofwhich has also been placed on record. W.P.(Crl.)Nos.216&234of2016 Page2of[5]

4. Respondent No.2 is present in Court along with her counsel and acknowledges the receipt of Bankers Cheque of? 3,00,000/-. She submits thatshe has no objection ifFIRs in question are quashed.

5. Counsel for the State submits thatsince it is a matrimonial dispute and the parties have settled the matter, appropriate order may be passed by this Court.

6. The FIR No. 254/2011 registered at P.S. Neb Sarai, Delhi and FIR No.33/2013 registered at P.S. Vasant Vihar against the present petitioner are for committing the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC and 420/467/468/471/34 IPC respectively. Offences punishable under Section 498-A/467/468/471 IPC are non-compoundable offence. In the decision ofGian Singh v State ofPunjab & Anr.2012(9)SCALE257,the three Judges Bench ofthe Supreme Court dealing with the issue ofquashing ofFIR has observed as under:- "57. The position that emergesfrom the above discussion can be summarised thus: 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 preventabuse ofthe process of any Court. In what cases power 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'sfamilyand the offender have settledthe dispute. Such offences W.P.(Crl.)Nos.216&234of2016 Page3of[5] 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 and pre-dominatingly civilfavour stand on different 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 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 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 of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation ofthe criminalproceeding would tantamount 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner and complainant submit that after the matter in dispute has been amicably settled between the parties, no purpose would be served in prosecuting the petitioners,therefore the FIR in question and criminal proceedings emanating therefrom may be quashed

8. In view of the aforesaid amicable settlement arrived at between the parties,I am ofthe eonsidered 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. W.P.(Crl.)Nos.216&234of2016 Page4of[5] ■V

9. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and FIR No.254/2011, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Neb Sarai, Delhi and FIR No.33/2013, under Sections 471/420/467/468/34 IPC, P.S. Vasant Vihar, Delhi are hereby quashed. Order dasti. iTIBHA RANI, J. FEBRUARY 12, 2016 W.P.(Crl.) Nos.216 & 234 of2016 Page 5 of[5]