Delhi High Court - Orders
Singh Raj Singh & Ors vs State & Anr on 3 March, 2021
Author: Anu Malhotra
Bench: Anu Malhotra
$~50
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 6100/2019 AND Crl.M.A. No. 3299/2021
SINGH RAJ SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Hirendra Kumar, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State
with SI Hawa Singh
R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ORDER
% 03.03.2021 The petitioners vide the present petition seek the quashing of the FIR No. 1119/2016, Police Station Mangolpuri under Sections 406/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, submitting to the effect that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties at the Counselling Cell of the Rohini Courts dated 9.5.2019 in MT 130/17 pursuant to which the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent no.2 has also since been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13 B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide decree dated 9.8.2019 in HMA 1809/2019 of the Court of the Judge Family Courts, North West Rohini Courts and that all claims between the petitioners and the respondent No.2 stand settled and no useful purpose would be served by the continuation of the proceedings qua the FIR in question.
The Investigating Officer of the case present has identified the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:10.03.2021 20:02:32 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
petitioners No.1 to 4 present today in Court through Video conferencing as being the four accused arrayed in FIR No. 1119/2016, PS Mangolpuri under Section 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and has identified the respondent No.2 present in Court today through video conferencing as being the complainant thereof.
The respondent No.2 in her deposition on oath in replies to specific Court queries has affirmed the factum of the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioners as well as the factum of dissolution of her marriage with the petitioner No.1 vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13 B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide decree dated 9.8.2019 in HMA 1809/2019 of the Court of the Judge Family Court, Rohini Courts. She also affirms the receipt of the total settled sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the petitioner of which a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is stated to have been received by her during the course of the proceedings under Section 13B(1) and 13B(2) of the HMA and the balance sum of Rs.1.00,000/- has been received by her today in the Court vide a Demand draft bearing No. 182083 dated 5.2.2021 drawn on Union Bank of India in her favour and she states that she thus does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR No. 1119/2016, PS Mangolpuri under Section 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor does she want the petitioners to be punished in relation thereto. She has stated that there is no child born of the wedlock between her and the petitioner no.1 and that she has studied till Standard X and that she does a marketing job and has understood the implications of the statement made by her and that she has made her statement voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:10.03.2021 20:02:32 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
On behalf of the State in view of the deposition on behalf of respondent no.2 and the settlement arrived at between the parties there is no opposition to the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR No. 1119/2016, PS Mangolpuri under Section 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
In as much as the FIR has emanated from a matrimonial discord which has since been resolved by the dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent and that all the claims of the respondent no.2 have been settled as testified by her in her deposition on oath there being no reason to disbelieve the statement made by the respondent no.2 that she has arrived at a settlement, it is considered appropriate to put a quietus to the litigation between the parties qua the FIR in question and for the maintenance of peace and harmony between them in view of the observations in the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, to the effect : -
"58............................ No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:10.03.2021 20:02:32 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed." [Refer to B.S. Joshi, (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant, (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma, (2008) 16 SCC 1.]"
and in view of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr. (2013) 4 SCC 58, to the effect : -
"15. In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non- compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:10.03.2021 20:02:32 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
16. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. They institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the Court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed...."
(emphasis supplied), FIR No. 1119/2016, PS Mangolpuri under Section 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are thus quashed against the petitioners.
The petition is disposed of.
ANU MALHOTRA, J MARCH 3, 2021/SV Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:10.03.2021 20:02:32 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI; NEW DELHI ITEM No.50 CRL.M.C. 6100/2019 SINGH RAJ SINGH & ORS. V. STATE & ANR.
CW-1 SI Hawa Singh Police Station Mangolpuri On S.A. I identify the petitioners no.1 to 4 namely, Singh Raj Singh, Raja Singh, Chandrawati @ Chander Kaur and Harjeet Kaur, as being the four accused present through Video Conferencing, arrayed in FIR No. 1119/2016, PS Mangolipuri under Section 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. I identify the respondent no.2 as being the complainant of the said FIR.
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
RO & AC 03.03.2021 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:10.03.2021 20:02:32 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI; NEW DELHI ITEM No.50 CRL.M.C. 6100/2019 SINGH RAJ SINGH & ORS. V. STATE & ANR.
CW-2 SAVITA @ SARITA D/O SH. HARI PRASAD, R/O H. NO.F-1/61, MANGOLPURI, DELHI 110083.
On S.A. In view of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioners on 9.5.2019 at the Counselling Cell Rohini Courts in MT-130/2017, and in view of the divorce between me and the petitioner No.1 vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13 B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide decree dated 09.08.2019 in HMA 1809/2019, and as I have received the total settled sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the petitioners of which a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was received by me during the course of the proceedings under Section 13B(1) and 13B(2) of the HMA and the balance sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has now been handed over to me by the petitioners vide a demand draft bearing no. 182083 dated 5.2.201 drawn on Union bank in the name of Sarita which is also my name, I do not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners no.1 to 4 seeking the quashing of the FIR No. 1119/16 Police Station Mangolpuri under Section 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor do I want the petitioners No. 1 to 4 punished in relation thereto. I have so stated voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter. There is no child born of the wedlock between me and the petitioner no.1. I have studied till standard X and I am doing a marketing job. I have understood the implications of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:10.03.2021 20:02:32 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
statement made by me and I do not want to think again.
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
RO & AC 03.03.2021 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:10.03.2021 20:02:32 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.