Delhi High Court - Orders
Sandeep & Ors vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 5 January, 2021
Author: Anu Malhotra
Bench: Anu Malhotra
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2502/2020
SANDEEP & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Zeeshan Hashmi, Adv.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for
State with SI Hawa Singh.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ORDER
% 05.01.2021 (through video conferencing) Vide the present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR No.1479/2017, PS Mangolpuri, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 submitting to the effect that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties and no useful purpose would be served by the continuation of the proceedings qua the FIR in question.
The Investigating Officer of the case is present and has identified the petitioners as being the accused arrayed in the FIR in question and has also identified the respondent no.2 as being the complainant thereof.
The respondent no.2 in her deposition on oath before the Court in reply to specific Court queries has affirmed the factum of the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioner no.1 vide a Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.10.2020. She has further stated that in terms of the said settlement, a total sum of Rs.2,25,000/- was agreed to be paid to her by Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:06.01.2021 18:02:35 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
the petitioners, of which, she has received Rs.1,50,000 previously from the petitioner no.1 and the balance sum of Rs.75,000/- has now been handed over to her by the petitioner no.1 vide a demand draft bearing no.599784 dated 21.12.2020 drawn on the Punjab National Bank in her name and that there are now no claims of hers left against the petitioner no.1.
She has further stated that the marriage between her and the petitioner no.1 has since been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent vide a decree dated 02.12.2019 in HMA No.2597/2019 of the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Courts, North-West, Rohini and that there is no child of the wedlock between her and the petitioner no.1.
The respondent no.2 further states that thus, she does not seek the continuation of the proceedings qua the FIR in question against the petitioners nor does she want them to be punished in relation thereto. She further states that she has done her Masters in Political Science and has understood the implication of the statement made by her.
On behalf of the State, it is submitted that there is no opposition to the prayer made by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR in question in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
In as much as the FIR has emanated from a matrimonial discord which has since been resolved vide the dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 with all claims of the respondent no.2 having been settled and there being no reason to disbelieve the statement of the respondent no.2 that she has arrived at a settlement with the petitioners, it is considered appropriate to put a quietus to the litigation and disputes between the parties for maintenance of peace and harmony between them, for the well being of the minor child, in terms of the verdict of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:06.01.2021 18:02:35 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:06.01.2021 18:02:35 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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.]"
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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:06.01.2021 18:02:35 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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), the FIR No.1479/2017, PS Mangolpuri, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners are quashed.
The petition is disposed of.
ANU MALHOTRA, J JANUARY 5, 2021 vm Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:06.01.2021 18:02:35 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 34 CRL.M.C. 2502/2020 SANDEEP & ORS. Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR 05.01.2021 CW-1 SI Hawa Singh, PS Mangol Puri.
I am the Investigating Officer of FIR No.1479/2017, PS Mangolpuri, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. I identify the petitioner no.1 Mr. Sandeep, petitioner no.2 Mr. Raj Kumar, petitioner no.3 Ms. Sapna, petitioner no.4 Ms. Deepika, petitioner no.5 Mr. Tarun and petitioner no.6 Ms. Priyanka as being the accused arrayed therein and I identify the respondent no.2 Ms. Meenu as being the complainant thereof.
ANU MALHOTRA, J RO & AC 05.01.2021 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:06.01.2021 18:02:35 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 34 CRL.M.C. 2502/2020 SANDEEP & ORS. Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR 05.01.2021 CW-2 Ms. Meenu, d/o Mr. Khem Chand, age 32 years, R/o H.No.261, T- Block, Mangolpuri, Delhi.
On S.A. I do not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR No.1479/2017, PS Mangolpuri, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor do I want them to be punished in relation thereto in as much as a settlement has since been arrived at between me and the petitioners vide a Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.10.2020. Pursuant to the said settlement, the marriage between me and the petitioner no.1 has since been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent vide a decree dated 02.12.2019 in HMA No.2597/2019 of the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Courts, North-West, Rohini. There is no child of the wedlock between me and the petitioner no.1.
In terms of the said settlement, a total sum of Rs.2,25,000/- was agreed to be paid to me by the petitioners, of which, I have received Rs.1,50,000 previously from the petitioner no.1 and the balance sum of Rs.75,000/- has now been handed over to me by the petitioner no.1 vide a demand draft bearing no.599784 dated 21.12.2020 drawn on the Punjab National Bank in my name and that there are now no claims of mine left against the petitioner no.1.
I have done Masters in Political Science and I do a job in marketing. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:06.01.2021 18:02:35 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
I have made my statement after understanding the implications thereof and I have made this statement voluntarily of my own accord without any duress or coercion from any quarter.
RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J
05.01.2021
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:06.01.2021
18:02:35
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.