Delhi High Court
Harbir Lakra & Ors vs State & Anr on 30 May, 2016
Author: P.S.Teji
Bench: P.S.Teji
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 708/2016
Date of Decision : May 30th, 2016
HARBIR LAKRA & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. A. Kampani, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Manjeet Arya, APP for the State
Respondent no.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Harbir Lakra, Sh. Sukhbir Singh and Smt. Birmati for quashing of FIR No.127/2012 dated 29.06.2012, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Mundka on the basis of the Memorandum of Settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent no.2, namely, Smt. Ujjwal Dahiya on 21.01.2016 at Delhi.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent no.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant in the FIR in question by her counsel.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 was solemnized on Crl.M.C. 708/2016 Page 1 of 10 10.12.2006. The complainant gave birth to a female child on 11.02.2010. Since the last two years, the husband of the complainant has been constantly harassing her physically and mentally. The husband of the complainant left his job in July 2010 and has been sitting at home idle since then. The husband of the complainant used to demand dowry of Rs. 50 lakhs from her. The complainant worked as a tutor and used to regularly give the petitioner no.1 money from her earnings. The father-in-law of the complainant was a regular drinker and often used to abuse the complainant. The mother-in-law of the complainant also used to abuse her and taunt her for not bringing sufficient dowry and for giving birth to a female child. The petitioner no.1 used to tell the complainant that all her complaints to the police are useless as his father was S.P. in CBI and his mama is serving in Delhi police. In May 2011, the petitioner no.1 slapped the complainant and gave her beatings with chappals after starting an argument regarding money for business. On 12.02.2012 again, the petitioner no.1 gave her beatings. Despite knowing about the pregnancy of the complainant, the petitioner no.1 dragged her from the stairs and locked her up in a room. Thereafter, the petitioner no.1, as alleged had filed false allegations against the complainant. The parents-in-law of the complainant went to USA and the complainant came to know that they were looking for a girl to marry their son-petitioner no.1.
Thereafter, both the parties managed to harmoniously settle all their differences with the help of family and friends.
4. Respondent No.2 present in the Court submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the Crl.M.C. 708/2016 Page 2 of 10 Memorandum of Settlement, the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 have agreed to live together along with their daughter at any place of their choice including the matrimonial home, bearing No. 899, near metro station, khasra No. 250, vill. Mundka, Delhi 110041 and they have decided to fully co-operate with each other and their respective family members for making their marriage a success. It is also agreed that Sh. Sukhbir Singh/petitioner no.2 is the owner of house bearing No. 899, near metro station, khasra No. 250, vill. Mundka, Delhi 110041; builtup property situated in Khasra No. 450/1/2, vill. Mundka, Delhi measuring 500 sq. yds. in the possession of Sh. Sukhbir Singh and builtup property situated in Khasra No. 428/4, Vill. Mundka, Delhi measuring 550 sq. yds. in the possession of Sh. Sukhbir Singh. It is also agreed that Sh. Sukhbir Singh has four sons including the petitioner no.1 and Sh. Sukhbir Singh has agreed to transfer 1/4 share out of the said properties in the name of petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 who shall be joint owners. It is also agreed that Sh. Sukhbir Singh shall not create any third party interest regarding the 1/4 share of petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 during his lifetime. The petitioner no.1 agreed to withdraw his divorce petition and FIR No. 102/12, P.S. Mundka. The respondent no.2 has agreed to withdraw her DV case; FIR No. 108/12, PS Mundka and FIR No. 101/12, PS Mundka. The respondent no.2 also agreed to not prosecute the petitioners in the FIR in question and to extend full cooperation in getting the same quashed before this Court. The respondent no.2 has also agreed to withdraw her application under Section 24 & 26 HMA filed on behalf of her daughter at the time of Crl.M.C. 708/2016 Page 3 of 10 the withdrawal of the divorce petition by the petitioner no.1. It is also agreed that Lt. Col. Navneet Dahiya brother of respondent no.2 shall not prosecute the petitioner no.1 in the case under FIR No. 195/13, PS Mundka under Section 307 IPC and to co-operate in getting the same quashed before this Court and he shall execute a separate Memorandum of Settlement with the petitioner no.1 in respect of FIR No. 195/13, PS Mundka under Section 307 IPC after he comes on leave in February 2016. It is agreed that the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 shall withdraw their respective cases on or before 10th February, 2016. It is also agreed that all the parties and their respective family members will withdraw any complaint/case file by them against others including Lt. Col. Navneet Dahiya before any Court of law and if not withdrawn the said complaint/case will be deemed withdrawn and the complainant party will not pursue the same under any circumstances. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 16.02.2016 supporting this petition. In the affidavit, she 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 Crl.M.C. 708/2016 Page 4 of 10 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 Crl.M.C. 708/2016 Page 5 of 10 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 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question 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.
Crl.M.C. 708/2016 Page 6 of 108. 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 Crl.M.C. 708/2016 Page 7 of 10 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 non- compoundable.
In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that notwithstanding the fact that the offence under Section 498A IPC is a non-compoundable 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. Crl.M.C. 708/2016 Page 8 of 10 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 and in view of statement made by the respondent no.2, the FIR in question warrants Crl.M.C. 708/2016 Page 9 of 10 to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.
14. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.127/2012 dated 29.06.2012, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Mundka and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.
15. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE MAY 30, 2016 dd Crl.M.C. 708/2016 Page 10 of 10