Delhi High Court - Orders
Rakesh Nautiyal And Ors vs State (Nct Of Delhi ) And Ors on 12 May, 2022
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1186/2022
RAKESH NAUTIYAL AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kapil Dua, Mr. Sourabh
Beekhu and Mr. DK Gandhi,
Advocates.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI ) AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for
State with SI Abhishek, PS-Harsh
Vihar.
Mr. Rashid Hashmi, Advocate for
R-2 with R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 12.05.2022
1. By the order dated 22.03.2022, it was recorded as follows:-
"1.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 94/2008 registered at PS-Dilshad Garden, Delhi, under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2.The petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 were married on 18.11.2005, and lived together until 16.09.2007. In the meanwhile, a male child was born on of the wedlock on 21.08.2006.
3.The parties have since been granted a decree of divorce on 01.10.2016, by the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, District Central, Tees Hazari Courts, Delhi. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No. 2 have entered into a Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:13.05.2022 16:52:12 CRL.M.C. 1186/2022 Page 1 of 4 settlement agreement on 04.12.2019 before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
4.Although, a total of six persons were named in the aforementioned FIR as accused, charges have since been framed by the Trial Court vide an order dated 16.02.2013 only against the three petitioners herein.
5.In the settlement agreement, the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 have agreed that the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 [MAT APP (FC) 191/2016] against the decree of divorce will be withdrawn, and that the respondent No. 2 would also consent to quashing of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. It may be noted that on 22.12.2020, the respondent No. 2 has already withdrawn the aforementioned appeal which was pending before this Court.
6.Although, the settlement agreement records that the respondent no. 2 does not want anything from the petitioner no. 1 for herself, or for her minor son, who is in her custody, the parties, who are present before me, seek a further reference to mediation in order to make some arrangements for the father [i.e. the petitioner No.1] to contribute towards the maintenance, upbringing and education of the minor child.
7.The petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No.2 are, therefore, referred to Samadhan, Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre ["the Centre"] to enable a resolution of the disputes to this limited extend.
8.The parties will appear before the Mediator appointed by the Centre on 29.03.2022, and the Mediator is requested to furnish a report to the Court before the next date of hearing.
9.List on 12.05.2022."
2. I am informed that the mediation proceedings between the parties pursuant to the aforesaid order have failed. However, the petitioner No.1 states that he would voluntarily like to make some arrangements to support the further education and maintenance of his son upon attaining Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:13.05.2022 16:52:12 CRL.M.C. 1186/2022 Page 2 of 4 the age of majority. The petitioner No.1 undertakes that he will place a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- in Fixed Deposit ["FD"] in the name of his minor son, to mature after the child turns 18 years of age on 21.08.2024. Additionally, he will place a sum of ₹ 50,000/- in the FD in the name of the child by two additional installments of ₹ 50,000/- each, by 31.03.2023 and 31.03.2024. Both of these FDs will also mature after the child attains majority. The aforesaid statement of the petitioner No.1 is taken on record.
3. The petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are present and are also represented through counsel. They are identified by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No.2 confirms that she has entered into the settlement agreement dated 04.12.2019 of her own free will and volition and without any pressure or coercion from any party. The petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 also confirm that the present settlement between them will have no effect upon the rights and entitlements of the minor child.
4. The power of the Court to quash criminal proceedings on the ground of a settlement has been considered by the Supreme Court in a number of cases. While emphasising that the exercise of the power under Section 482 of the CrPC in a particular case would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and no hard and fast categorisation is possible, the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 [paragraph 58] observed that in case of offences arising out of matrimonial and family disputes, the wrong is basically to the victim and the quashing of criminal proceedings in such a case may be appropriate even if the offences have not been made compoundable.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:13.05.2022 16:52:12 CRL.M.C. 1186/2022 Page 3 of 4Similarly, the guidelines laid down in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466 [paragraph 29.4] contemplate that FIRs arising out of such relationships can be quashed if it would meet the ends of justice or prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.
5. In the present case, the proceedings between the parties arise out of a matrimonial relationship, which has already culminated in a decree of divorce. Applying the tests laid down by the Supreme Court, it may be observed that the respondent No. 2 has also affirmed the voluntary nature of the settlement before the Court and that in these circumstances, the criminal proceedings are unlikely to result in conviction. In the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that it would be in the interest of justice to quash the FIR, as sought by the petitioners.
6. For the reasons aforesaid, and recording the further undertaking of petitioner No. 1 in paragraph 2 above, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 94/2008 registered at PS-Dilshad Garden, Delhi, under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, stands quashed, alongwith all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
7. It is made clear that this order will not prejudice the rights and remedies of the minor child of the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 2, which remain expressly reserved.
PRATEEK JALAN, J MAY 12, 2022 'vp'/ Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:13.05.2022 16:52:12 CRL.M.C. 1186/2022 Page 4 of 4