Crl.M.C. 4757/2015 HIGH COURT OF DELHI CRL.M.C. 4757/2015 Date of Decision: January 29th , 2016 MOHINDER KUMAR BHALLA & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through Mr.Praveen Kumar, Adv.
VERSUS
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr.G.M. Farooqui, APP for the State
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. Mohinder Kumar Bhalla and Sh. Surender Kumar Bhalla for quashing of FIR No.888/2000 dated 13.09.2000, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden on the basis of the mediation report of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi arrived at between the petitioner no.1 and respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Bhavna @ Dolly on 16.12.2013.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been 2016:DHC:742 identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by SI Mangal Ram.
3. Factual matrix of the present case is that respondent no.2 was married with the petitioner no.1 on 07.09.1994 and that two children were born out of the wedlock. The wedding was hosted with great pomp and show and in dowry the brothers of the respondent no.2 gave a colour TV, furniture, utensils, clothes etc. The very next day the father of petitioner no.1 took away all of respondent no. 2’s jewellery that she had received from her parental home. On asking the petitioner no.1 for anything, respondent no. 2 was directed to bring money from her mother. Respondent no.1 was not provided with proper clothing in winters and that upon instigation by his father, petitioner no.1 gave several beatings to respondent no.2. After 7 months of marriage petitioner no.1 and his father sent respondent no.2 to her parental home to demand Rs. 10,000/- from her brothers and when that demand was not fulfilled, nobody came from respondent no.2’s matrimonial home to take her back. Respondent no. 2’s was taken to her matrimonial home at Lajpat Nagar, Delhi by her mother. Following which the gold ear rings gifted to respondent no.2 in the presence of the parents of petitioner no.1 on the occasion of the ‘Varsi’ of respondent no.2’s deceased father were taken away and sold by petitioner no.1 a month later. An auto was purchased by the mother of respondent no.2 for petitioner no.1 to earn a livelihood, but petitioner no.1 came home without earning a single penny every day. One day, petitioner no.1 beat respondent no.2 mercilessly and obtained in writing on a paper that if anything were to happen to her, her husband and her in-laws would not be held at fault. The complainant was three months pregnant when the petitioner no.1 hit her in the stomach and was sent to her parental home. Later on, at the request of the petitioner she was sent back with him. Thereafter, the complainant’s father-in-law and her husband ousted her of her matrimonial home. On 29.03.1999, the complainant’s brother took her to his house along with her children. Despite all the efforts made by the complainant to stay away from the petitioner no.1, the petitioner no.1 would persistently not let the complainant be at peace. On the said allegations, the FIR in question was lodged by the respondent no.2 on 13.09.2000. In the year 2008, the respondent no.2 filed for divorce under Sections 13 (1) (ia) & (ib) HMA against the petitioner no.1 vide HMA No.195/2008. Vide decree dated 22.10.2008, the marriage between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 was duly dissolved. During the trial of the present case the matter was referred by the Trial Court for mediation during which the parties reached an amicable settlement.
4. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the mediation report, the respondent no. 2 had filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1) B of the Hindu Marriage Act which was granted from the Court of Ms. Seema Maini, ADJ, Tis Hazari, Courts, Delhi on 22.10.2008. It is further agreed between the parties that petitioner no.1 shall file the appropriate legal proceedings for quashing of FIR in question before this Court on or before 28.01.2014 and the complainant/ respondent no.2 Bhavna @ Dolly shall co-operate for the same. They further agreed that respondent no.2 shall be entitled to permanent custody of the children till the age of their maturity and that the husband/ petitioner no.1 and his family shall not have any visitation rights in respect of the children. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 04.02.2015 supporting this petition. In the affidavit, the respondent no.2 has 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
proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with
14,344 characters total
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 agrees to the quashing of the FIR in question without any threat or coercion or undue 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 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 tranquillity 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 the offence under Section 498A IPC is a noncompoundable 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. The Courts in India are now normally taking the view that endeavour should be taken to promote conciliation and secure speedy settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs such as, matrimonial disputes between the couple or/and between the wife and her in-laws. India being a vast country naturally has large number of married persons resulting into high numbers of matrimonial disputes due to differences in temperament, life-styles, opinions, thoughts etc. between such couples, due to which majority is coming to the Court to get redressal. In its 59th report, the Law Commission of India had emphasized that while dealing with disputes concerning the family, the Court ought to adopt an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings and that it should make reasonable efforts at settlement before the commencement of the 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 are already over burdened due to pendency of large number of cases because of which it becomes difficult for speedy disposal of matrimonial disputes alone. As the matrimonial disputes are mainly between the husband and the wife and personal matters are involved in such disputes, so, it requires conciliatory procedure to bring a settlement between them. Nowadays, mediation has played a very important role in settling the disputes, especially, matrimonial disputes and has yielded good results. The Court must exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to put an end to the matrimonial litigations at the earliest so that the parties can live peacefully.
12. Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility and is a fit case for this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.
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 the parties, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.
14. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.888/2000 dated 13.09.2000, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.
15. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
JANUARY 29, 2016
dd
Upgrade to Pro
This feature is available on the Pro plan. Upgrade to unlock full AI summaries, PDF downloads, and more.