Crl.M.C. 4661/2015 HIGH COURT OF DELHI CRL.M.C. 4661/2015 & Crl. M.A. 16714/2015 Date of Decision: January 29th , 2016 DHIRENDER & ORS ..... Petitioners Through Mr.Sameer Dewan, Adv. with petitioners in person.
VERSUS
THE STATE ( DELHI ADMN.) & ANR ..... Respondents Through Ms.Manjeet Arya, APP for the State. Mr.Jainendra Kumar, Adv. with Respondent No.2 in person.
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. Dhirender, Sh. Sudesh Chhikara, Sh. Vikram and Sh. Subhash for quashing of FIR No.26/2012 dated 10.02.2012, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Palam Village on the basis of the mediation report by the Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi between the petitioner no.1 and respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Kavita on 16.07.2015.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State 2016:DHC:739 submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by her counsel.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 28.02.2011. After the marriage the complainant’s husband started abusing her and threatened her with physical abuse. She was pressurized for dowry and she was also taunted for not bringing sufficient dowry. One day, her husband came home in a drunken condition after which he beat her. On 25.06.2011, her in-laws pressurized her to go to her parental home. On 01.07.2011, she was informed by her mother-in-law that her father is unwell and she should leave immediately. Thereafter, respondent no.2 left for her parental home. Later on, a complaint was filed by respondent no. 2 before C.A.W. Cell, Dwarka against the petitioners which later on converted into the FIR in question. During the bail proceedings of petitioner no.1, the matter was referred to the mediation cell where both the parties settled their disputes but due to some supervening circumstances, the said settlement could not be implemented and the matter was referred again for mediation where the matter was finally settled vide settlement dated 16.07.2015.
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 and petitioner no.1 had filed a petition for divorce u/s 13(1)B of the Hindu Marriage Act wherein the first motion petition has been allowed vide order dated 10.02.2015. It has been agreed that the respondent no.2 has settled all her claims with regard to the offence under Section 498A/406/34 IPC in the FIR in question as well as all her claims regarding dowry, stridhan, permanent alimony and her maintenance (past, present and future) with the petitioners without any monetary consideration. It has been also agreed that, the respondent no.2 shall not claim the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- lying with this Court as deposited by the petitioner no.1 and that she authorizes the petitioner no.1 to claim the same in his own name and undertakes to cooperate in this regard and she would have no objection if the same amount were to be released in the name of the petitioner no.1 after recording of the statement of the parties in second motion under Section 13-B(2) of the HMA, to be filed on or before 31.08.2015. It has further been agreed that petitioner nos.[1] & 2 shall file the appropriate legal proceedings for quashing of FIR in question before this Court on or before 30.09.2015. It is agreed between the parties that they shall make appropriate statements before the concerned Courts and shall co-operate with each other for all legal proceedings. The parties agreed to not file any claim/case against each other or their respective family members in respect of the FIR in question and that they shall bear their respective costs of litigation. They further agreed to appear before the Referral Court on 22.08.2015 for their respective statements in terms of this settlement. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 06.11.2015 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 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.
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.
13,634 characters total
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.26/2012 dated 10.02.2012, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Palam Village and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.
15. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
16. Application Crl. M.A. 16714/2015 is also 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.