Delhi High Court - Orders
Santosh Kumar Ors & Ors vs The State Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 12 October, 2022
Author: Anu Malhotra
Bench: Anu Malhotra
$~82
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 5190/2022 & CRL.M.A. 20719/2022
SANTOSH KUMAR ORS & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioners in person with Ms. Jyoti
Gupta, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for
State with SI Ranbir Singh, PS Vasant
Kunj South.
R-2 in person with Mr. Ashok Kumar
Soni, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ORDER
% 12.10.2022 CRL.M.A. 20719/2022 (Ex.) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 5190/2022Learned counsel present on behalf of the respondent no.2 as affirmed by the respondent no.2 herself submits that the vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent no.2 would be filed during the course of the day, the same be filed accordingly.
The petitioners, vide the present petition seek the quashing of the FIR CRL.M.C. 5190/2022 Page 1 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:12.10.2022 17:57:56 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
No. 505/2016, PS Vasant Kunj, South under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 submitting to the effect that a settlement has since been arrived at between the parties to the petition in view of the settlement document dated 08.02.2022, that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 has already since been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the HMA, 1955 in HMA No.327/2022 vide a decree dated 22.08.2022 of the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, PHC, New Delhi, that the total settled sum of Rs.14 Lakhs in terms of the settlement document dated 08.02.2022 has been paid to the respondent no.2 by the petitioners and that no useful purpose would be served by the continuation of the proceedings qua the FIR in question.
The deputed Investigating Officer of the case is present and has identified the petitioner nos. 1 to 4 i.e. petitioner no.1 Santosh Kumar, petitioner no.2 Shobhawati Devi, petitioner no.3 Harender Kumar and petitioner no.4 Inderjeet present in Court as being the four accused arrayed in the FIR No. 505/2016, PS Vasant Kunj, South under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and has also identified the respondent no.2 Ms. Aarti Kumari as being the complainant thereof.
The respondent no.2 in her deposition on oath in replies to specific Court queries by the Court has affirmed having signed her affidavit dated 22.08.2022 as her non-opposition to the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR in question as well as the settlement document dated 08.02.2022 arrived at between her and the petitioner no.1 qua which she states that she has signed both these documents voluntarily of CRL.M.C. 5190/2022 Page 2 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:12.10.2022 17:57:56 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
her own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter. She has also affirmed the factum of receipt of the total settled sum of Rs.14 Lakhs from the petitioners in view of the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioner no.1, of which a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- had been received by her previously during the course of the withdrawal of complaint case U/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act vide CC No.4248/2017, a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- had 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.4,00,000/- has now been handed over to her today during the course of the present proceedings vide a demand draft bearing no. 024851 dated 06.10.2022 drawn on the IDBI Bank in her favour and has stated that there are now no claims of hers left against the petitioners. She has also affirmed the factum of the dissolution of her marriage with the petitioner no.1 vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the HMA, 1955 in HMA No.327/2022 vide a decree dated 22.08.2022 of the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, PHC, New Delhi and has stated that there is no child born of the wedlock between her and the petitioner no.1.
In reply to a specific Court query, the respondent no.2 has further stated that the complaint that was filed by the petitioners against her and other persons under Sections 323/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in the court of Ld. ACJM, District Court Ghaziabad, UP, has since been withdrawn and that there is no other litigation apart from the present FIR against the petitioners pending between her and the petitioners. She has further stated that in view of the settlement arrived at between her and the CRL.M.C. 5190/2022 Page 3 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:12.10.2022 17:57:56 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
petitioner no.1, she does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner nos. 1 to 4 seeking the quashing of the FIR No. 505/2016, PS Vasant Kunj, South under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor does she want them to be punished in relation thereto. She has further stated that she is a graduate and has understood the implications of the statement made by her and that she has arrived at a settlement with the petitioners voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter and that she does not need to think again.
The learned APP for the State in the circumstances of the case, does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR in question.
In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and as there appears no reason to disbelieve the statement made by the respondent no.2 that she has arrived at a settlement with the petitioners voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter, in as much as, the FIR has apparently emanated from a matrimonial discord between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 which has since been resolved by the dissolution of their marriage vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent, for maintenance of peace and harmony between the parties it is considered appropriate to put a quietus to the litigation between the parties in terms of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narender Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab; (2014) 6 SCC 466 wherein it has been observed vide paragraph 31(IV) to the effect:-
"31. 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 CRL.M.C. 5190/2022 Page 4 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:12.10.2022 17:57:56 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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:
(I) ........
(II) ........
(III) ........
(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly 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.
..................."
and in view of the observations 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 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 CRL.M.C. 5190/2022 Page 5 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:12.10.2022 17:57:56 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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.
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 CRL.M.C. 5190/2022 Page 6 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:12.10.2022 17:57:56 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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), In view thereof, FIR No. 505/2016, PS Vasant Kunj, South under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner nos. 1 to 4 i.e. petitioner no.1 Santosh Kumar, petitioner no.2 Shobhawati Devi, petitioner no.3 Harender Kumar and petitioner no.4 Inderjeet are thus quashed.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
ANU MALHOTRA, J OCTOBER 12, 2022 nc CRL.M.C. 5190/2022 Page 7 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:12.10.2022 17:57:56 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI ITEM No.82 CRL.M.C. 5190/2022 SANTOSH KUMAR ORS & ORS. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
12.10.2022 CW-1 SI Ranbir Singh, PS Vasant Kunj, South.
ON S.A. I have been deputed to attend the proceedings qua FIR No. 505/2016, PS Vasant Kunj, South under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
There are four accused arrayed in the FIR in question. I identify the petitioner nos. 1 to 4 i.e. petitioner no.1 Santosh Kumar, petitioner no.2 Shobhawati Devi, petitioner no.3 Harender Kumar and petitioner no.4 Inderjeet present today in Court as being the four accused arrayed in the aforesaid FIR and I also identify the respondent no.2 Ms. Aarti Kumari as being the complainant thereof.
RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J
12.10.2022
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:12.10.2022
17:57:56
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI ITEM No.82 CRL.M.C. 5190/2022 SANTOSH KUMAR ORS & ORS. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
12.10.2022 CW-2 Ms. Aarti Kumari, D/0 SHRI PREM NATH, aged 35 years, R/o HOUSE NO. 656/2, NEAR TALAB TARLA MOHALLA, VILLAGE GHITORNI, NEW DELHI-110030.
ON S.A. My affidavit dated 22.08.2022 as my non-opposition to the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR in question and the settlement document dated 08.02.2022 arrived at between me and the petitioner no.1 bear my signatures thereon, which I have signed voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter.
In view of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioner no.1, the total settled sum of Rs.14 Lakhs had been agreed to be paid to me by the petitioners, of which a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- had been received by me previously during the course of the withdrawal of complaint case U/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act vide CC No.4248/2017, a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- had been 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.4,00,000/- has now been handed over to me today during the course of the present proceedings vide a demand draft bearing no. 024851 dated 06.10.2022 drawn on the IDBI Bank in my favour There are now no claims of mine left against the petitioners. The marriage between me and the petitioner no.1 has Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:12.10.2022 17:57:56 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
since been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the HMA, 1955 in HMA No.327/2022 vide a decree dated 22.08.2022 of the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, PHC, New Delhi. There is no child born of the wedlock between me and the petitioner no.1.
The complaint that was filed by the petitioners against me and other persons under Sections 323/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in the court of Ld. ACJM, District Court Ghaziabad, UP has since been withdrawn. There is no other litigation apart from the present FIR against the petitioners that is pending between me and the petitioners.
In view of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioner no.1, I do not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner nos. 1 to 4 seeking the quashing of the FIR No. 505/2016, PS Vasant Kunj, South under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor do I want them to be punished in relation thereto.
I am a graduate.
I have made my statement after understanding the implications thereof voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter and I do not need to think again.
RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J
12.10.2022
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:12.10.2022
17:57:56
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.