Delhi High Court - Orders
Sunil And Ors vs State And Anr on 21 July, 2022
Author: Anu Malhotra
Bench: Anu Malhotra
$~46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3300/2022
SUNIL AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Jitin Kumar, Advocate
versus
STATE AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for
State with ASI Sukhpal
Mr.Suni Wali and Mr.Vinay Pratap
Singh, Advocates for No.2 with
respondent no.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ORDER
% 21.07.2022 Crl.M.A. No.13894/2022 Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Crl.M.C. No. 3300/2022The petitioners, vide the present petition seek the quashing of the FIR No. 964/2019 Police Station Sultanpuri registered under Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 submitting to the effect that a settlement has since been arrived at between the petitioners and the respondent no.2 vide a settlement document dated 13.4.2022 pursuant to which all disputes between the parties stand settled and that a total sum of Rs.7,50,000/- has been paid by the petitioners to the respondent no.2 inclusive of a Fixed Deposit in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- in the name of the minor child Devanshi born of the wedlock between the petitioner No.1 and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:22.07.2022 16:28:46 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
the respondent No.2 and that there are no claims of hers left against the petitioners. It is inter alia submitted through the petition that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 has since been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent dated 13.4.2022 in HMA No. 736/2022 through mutual consent under Section 13 B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 of the Court of the Judge, Family Courts, North-West, Rohini, Delhi, and that no useful purpose would be served by the continuation of the proceedings in relation to the present FIR.
The Investigating Officer of the case is present and has identified the petitioners No.1 to 6, namely, Sunil Kumar, Naresh Chand, Roopwati, Nimender Kumar Singh, Babli Rani @ Garima and Ravi Kumar, present in the Court today, as being the six accused arrayed in the FIR in question and has also identified the respondent no.2 as being the complainant of the FIR in question.
The respondent No.2 in replies to specific Courts queries affirms having signed her affidavit dated 13.4.2022 and the settlement document dated 23.9.2021 which she states that she has signed the same voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter. The respondent No.2 further submits that in terms of the settlement the marriage between her and the petitioner No.1 has since been dissolved vide a decree of divorce dated 13.4.2022 in HMA No. 736/2022 through mutual consent under Section 13 B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 of the Court of the Judge, Family Courts, North-West, Rohini, Delhi and that there is a minor child born of the wedlock between her and the petitioner No.1 who is in her custody and shall remain in her custody. The respondent No.2 further deposed that in terms of the settlement a total settled sum of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:22.07.2022 16:28:46 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
Rs.7,50,000/- had to be paid to her by the petitioners of which she has received a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- and a Fixed deposit for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- in favour of her minor child namely Devanshi from the petitioners previously and the balance sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has now been handed over to her today in Court during the course of the present proceedings in the form of a Demand draft bearing No. 869428 dated 16.7.2022 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank in my favour. Respondent No.2 further deposed that since there are now no claims of hers left against the petitioners she thus does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner Nos. 1 to 6, namely, Sunil Kumar, Naresh Chand, Roopwati, Nimender Kumar Singh, Babli Rani @ Garima and Ravi Kumar seeking quashing of the FIR No. 964/2019 Police Station Sultanpuri registered under Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, nor does she want them to be punished in relation thereto. The respondent No.2 further submitted that she has done B.Com and that she has made her statement voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter after understanding the implications of it and that she does not need to think again.
On behalf of the State, there is no opposition to the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR in question in view of the deposition of the respondent no.2 and the settlement arrived at between the parties.
The respondent no.2 is apparently well educated having done her B.Com in as much as, the FIR in question 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:22.07.2022 16:28:46 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
decree of divorce through mutual consent aforementioned 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, 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 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:22.07.2022 16:28:46 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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 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.]"
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:22.07.2022 16:28:46 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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 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. 964/2019 Police Station Sultanpuri registered under Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:22.07.2022 16:28:46 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners No.1 to 6, namely, Sunil Kumar, Naresh Chand, Roopwati, Nimender Kumar Singh, Babli Rani @ Garima and Ravi Kumar are thus quashed.
However, it is made expressly clear that the quashing of the FIR No. 964/2019 Police Station Sultanpuri registered under Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the decree of divorce through mutual consent between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2, and the claims in the mediation settlement vide clause 5(b) which reads to the effect:
"b. That Rs. 4,00,000/- (Four Lakh Only) shall be paid by the First Party /Husband in the form of Fixed Deposit in favour of minor child namely Baby Devanshi to the Second Party /Wife at time of second Motion TJ/S 13(B)(2) HMA.", would not amount to any embargo on the minor child Devanshi seeking her claims against the petitioner no.1 qua maintenance or otherwise in accordance with law in view of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal 4031-4032/2019 arising out of SLP (C) Nos.32868- 32869/2018 titled as Ganesh Vs. Sudhirkumar Shrivastava &Ors. vide the verdict dated 22.04.2019 as adhered to and followed by this Court in Rakesh Jain &Ors. vs. State &Anr. in CRL.M.C. 2935/2019 dated 06.09.2019.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
ANU MALHOTRA, J JULY 21, 2022/sv Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:22.07.2022 16:28:46 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI Item No. 46 Crl. M.C. 3300/2022 SUNIL AND ORS . Vs. STATE AND ANR CW-1 ASI SUKHPAL Police Station SULTANPURI ON S.A. I am the Investigating Officer of the case FIR No. 964/2019 Police Station Sultanpuri registered under Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. There are six accused arrayed in the FIR. I identify the petitioners No.1 to 6, namely, Sunil Kumar, Naresh Chand, Roopwati, Nimender Kumar Singh, Babli Rani @ Garima and Ravi Kumar, present in the Court today, as being the six accused arrayed in the FIR in question.
I identify the respondent no.2 as being the complainant of the FIR in question.
RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J
21.07.2022
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:22.07.2022
16:28:46
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI Item No. 46 Crl. M.C. 3300/2022 SUNIL AND ORS . Vs. STATE AND ANR 21.07.2022 CW-2 RUBY RANI D/o SH.RAJ KUMAR AGED 34 YEARS R/O C- 1/47A, NEAR T.N.SCHOOL, KRISHNA VIHAR, C-BLOCK SULTANPURI, NORTH-WEST DELHI.
On S.A. My affidavit dated 13.4.2022 and the settlement document dated 23.9.2021 bear my signatures thereon which I have signed voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter.
In terms of the settlement the marriage between me and the petitioner No.1 has since been dissolved vide a decree of divorce dated 13.4.2022 in HMA No. 736/2022 through mutual consent under Section 13 B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 of the Court of the Judge, Family Courts, North- West, Rohini, Delhi. There is a minor child born of the wedlock between me and the petitioner No.1 who is in my custody and shall remain in my custody. In terms of the settlement a total settled sum of Rs.7,50,000/- had to be paid to me by the petitioners of which I have received a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- and a Fixed deposit for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- in favour of my minor child namely Devanshi from the petitioners previously and the balance sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has now been handed over to me today in Court during the course of the present proceedings in the form of a Demand draft bearing No. 869428 dated 16.7.2022 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank in my favour. There are no claims of mine left against the petitioners. I thus do not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner Nos. 1 to 6, namely, Sunil Kumar, Naresh Chand, Roopwati, Nimender Kumar Singh, Babli Rani @ Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:22.07.2022 16:28:46 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
Garima and Ravi Kumar seeking quashing of the FIR No. 964/2019 Police Station Sultanpuri registered under Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, nor do I want them to be punished in relation thereto.
I have done B.Com.. I have made my statement voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter after understanding the implications of it. I do not need to think again.
RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J
21.07.2022
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:22.07.2022
16:28:46
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.