Delhi High Court - Orders
Sudhir Gupta And Others vs State Of Nct Delhi And Anr on 5 July, 2022
Author: Anu Malhotra
Bench: Anu Malhotra
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 810/2022
SUDHIR GUPTA AND OTHERS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Praveen K. Singh and Mr.dishant
Vashisht, Advocates for the petitioner
Nos. 1 to 8 with petitioner No.1 in
person
versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.____, for Mr.Avi Singh ASC for
State with SI Manish Kumar Police
Station Ranhola
Mr.R.K.Jha and Mr.P.C.Jha,
Advocates for R-2 with respondent
No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ORDER
% 05.07.2022 Crl.M.A.No. 10711/2022 The matter is indicated to be listed for the date 22.8.2022 and taken up on Crl.M.A. No. 10711/2022 filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking an early hearing in the matter submitting to the effect a settlement has since been arrived at between the parties to the petition and that in terms of the order dated 17.5.2022 the compromise deed has been signed with all the parties to the FIR and has been placed on record and that in terms of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and the respondent No.2 a total settled sum of Rs.16,00,000/- has been agreed to be paid to the respondent no.2 by the petitioners of which a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- has been paid previously and the balance sum of Rs.5,00,000/- would be paid vide a Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:06.07.2022 18:33:10 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
demand draft bearing No. 027389 dated 16.4.2022 drawn on IDBI Bank in the name of the respondent No.2 which would soon elapse before the next date of hearing, i.e., 22.8.2022, and thus it is prayed that the matter be taken up.
In the interest of justice, the early hearing application is allowed and the matter has been taken up for consideration.
The Crl.M.A. No. 10711/2022 stands disposed of. The date already fixed i.e., 22.08.2022 stands cancelled.
W.P.Crl.810/2022The petitioners vide the present petition seek the quashing of the FIR No. 385/2016 Police Station Ranhola registered under Sections 406/498A/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 17.5.2022 and that in terms of the settlement the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent No.1 has since been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13 B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 of the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Courts, West District, Tis Hazari Courts and that a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- had been agreed to be paid to the respondent No.2 by the petitioners of which a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- has been paid to the respondent No.2 previously and the balance sum of Rs.5,00,000/- would be paid today during the course of the present proceedings and thus no 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 No.1 as being one of the accused arrayed in the FIR through the proofs of identity produced by him. It is further submitted by the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:06.07.2022 18:33:10 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
Investigating Officer that initially there were nine accused arrayed in the FIR of whom one accused named Lalita has expired. The Investigating officer has also identified the respondent No.2 as being the complainant of the FIR in question.
The respondent No.2 in her deposition on oath has affirmed having signed the settlement document dated 17.05.2022 executed between her and the petitioner No.1 voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter. The respondent No.2 further deposed that a settlement document was also recorded at the Counselling Cell of the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Courts (west District), Tis Hazari Courts which she has signed voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter. The respondent No.2 further submitted 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 22.2.2022 in HMA No. 202/2022 through mutual consent under Section 13 B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 of the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Courts, West District, Tis Hazari Courts and that there is no child born of the wedlock between her and the petitioner No.1. She further deposed that in terms of the settlement a total settled sum of Rs.16,00,000/- had to be paid to her by the petitioners of which a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- has been paid to her by the petitioners previously and the balance sum of Rs.5,00,000/- has been handed over to her today in Court during the course of the present proceedings in the form of a Demand draft bearing No. 027389 dated 16.4.2022 drawn on IDBI Bank in her name. She further states that there are no claims of hers left against the petitioners and thus she does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner Nos. 1 to 8, namely, Sudhir Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:06.07.2022 18:33:10 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
Gupta, Sardev Gupta, Smt.Usha Gupta, Suman Gupta, Sunil Gupta, Smt.Anju Gupta, Sh.Arvind Gupta and Smt.Urmila Pradhan seeking the quashing of the FIR No. 385/2016 Police Station Ranhola registered under Sections 406/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, nor does she want them to be punished in relation thereto.
She further deposed that she is a graduate and 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.
The learned ASC for the State submits that there is no opposition to the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR in question in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
In view of the deposition of the respondent no.2, non-opposition on behalf of the State, identification of the petitioner No.1 and the respondent no.2 by the Investigating Officer of the case and the settlement that has been arrived at between the parties, 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 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 them 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:06.07.2022 18:33:10 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:06.07.2022 18:33:10 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:06.07.2022 18:33:10 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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 settled own 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. 385/2016 Police Station Ranhola registered under Sections 406/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 8, namely Sudhir Gupta, Sardev Gupta, Smt.Usha Gupta, Suman Gupta, Sunil Gupta, Smt.Anju Gupta, Sh.Arvind Gupta and Smt.Urmila Pradhan and the proceedings emanating therefrom are thus quashed.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
ANU MALHOTRA, J JULY 5, 2022 sv Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:06.07.2022 18:33:10 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI Item No. 2 W.P(CRL.) No.810/2022 SUDHIR GUPTA AND OTHERS V. STATE OF NCT DELHI AND ANR.
CW-1 SI MANISH KUMAR Police Station RANHOLA ON S.A. I have been deputed to attend the proceedings qua the FIR No. 385/2016 Police Station Ranhola registered under Sections 406/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. I identify the respondent no.2 as being the complainant of the FIR in question as I have verified her documents. Initially there were nine accused arrayed in relation to the FIR of whom one accused named Lalita has expired. I identify the petitioner No.1 namely, Sudhir Gupta, as being one of the accused arrayed in the FIR in question on the basis of his proofs of identity produced by him.
RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J
05.07.2022.
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:06.07.2022
18:33:10
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI Item No. 2 W.P(CRL.) No.810/2022 SUDHIR GUPTA AND OTHERS V. STATE OF NCT DELHI AND ANR.
CW-2 MS.MANISHA KUMARI D/O SH.KRISHNA PRASAD AGED 36 YEARS R/O H. No.553 BLOCK B, VIKAS NAGAR, DELHI On S.A. The settlement document dated 17.05.2022 executed between me and the petitioner No.1 bears my signatures thereon which I have signed voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter. A settlement document was also recorded at the Counselling Cell of the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Courts (west District), Tis Hazari Courts which also bears 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 22.2.2022 in HMA No. 202/2022 through mutual consent under Section 13 B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 of the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Courts, West District, Tis Hazari Courts. There is no child born of the wedlock between me and the petitioner No.1. In terms of the settlement a total settled sum of Rs.16,00,000/- had to be paid to me by the petitioners of which I have received a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- from the petitioners previously and the balance sum of Rs.5,00,000/- has been handed over to me today in Court during the course of the present proceedings in the form of a Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:06.07.2022 18:33:10 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
Demand draft bearing No. 027389 dated 16.4.2022 drawn on IDBI Bank in my name. There are no claims of mine left against the petitioners. I thus do not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner Nos. 1 to 8, namely, Sudhir Gupta, Sardev Gupta, Smt.Usha Gupta, Suman Gupta, Sunil Gupta, Smt.Anju Gupta, Sh.Arvind Gupta and Smt.Urmila Pradhan seeking quashing of the FIR No. 385/2016 Police Station Ranhola registered under Sections 406/498A/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 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
05.07.2022.
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:06.07.2022
18:33:10
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.