Delhi High Court - Orders
Anil Sharma vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 19 April, 2021
Author: Anu Malhotra
Bench: Anu Malhotra
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 364/2021
ANIL SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kapil Kumar, Adv.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State
with Inspector B. D. Meena.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ORDER
% 19.04.2021 The petitioner, vide the present petition seeks the quashing of the FIR No. 638/2015, PS Badarpur, 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 vide a MOU dated 21.07.2017 and pursuant thereto the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent no.2 has since been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the HMA, 1955 in HMA Petition No.1756/2018 vide a decree dated 12.11.2018 of the Court of the Judge, Family Courts, South-East, District, Saket, Delhi and that all claims of the respondent no.2 qua the petitioner stand settled by the payment of the total settled sum of Rs.8,50,000/- by the petitioner to the respondent no.2 and no useful purpose would be served by the continuation of the proceedings in relation to the FIR in question.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:23.04.2021 21:54:30 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
During the course of the proceedings on the date 08.02.2021, a submission had been made by the respondent no.2 whereby vide clause 6 thereof the petition had to be filed within a period of two months from the date of decree of divorce, the same has only been filed now on 6.2.2021 qua which learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same had been filed in March, 2020, and notice thereof had also been sent to the counsel for the complainant but that it has been listed only now. It was observed vide order dated 08.02.2021 that even if the pandemic was taken into account, it is essential to observe that the date of decree is 12.11.2018 qua which it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the condition of the petitioner was that he has often been hospitalized almost every 15 days. A submission had also been made by the respondent No.2 on the last date of hearing that despite the terms of the settlement vide clause 4 thereof the respondent no.2 had been allowed to have visitation rights on the second and fourth Sunday of every month at around 10 am to 4 p.m. but in the last three years the respondent No.2 has never met the minor child despite being the mother of the child.
Vide order dated 08.02.2021, it was observed to the effect that before proceeding further, it would be open to the respondent No.2 to meet the minor child born of the wedlock between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 on the second Sunday of that month, i.e., 13.2.2021 in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties as placed on record dated 21.7.2017 in accordance with the law. The petitioner and the respondent no.2 were permitted to settle the institution of the present petition inter se before the next date.
Pursuant thereto on behalf of the petitioner, documents have been Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:23.04.2021 21:54:30 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
filed which include an NOC of the respondent no.2 for quashing of the FIR 635/2015 PS Badarpur along with the copy of the Demand Draft No. 145308 dated 08.12.2020 issued by Syndicate Bank as full and final settled amount along-with the compensation amount of sum of Rs.35,000/- in cash on 17.02.2021 for delay in filing quashing petition from applicant/accused Anil Sharma in favour of respondent no.2 and as per the NOC filed by respondent no.2, she has received a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the petitioner towards full and final settlement along-with the compensation amount a sum of Rs.35,000/- on 17.02.2021 for the delay in filing the petition for quashing that she does not oppose the quashing of the FIR in question. Similar submissions have been made by the respondent in her deposition on oath in response to specific queries of the Court.
The Investigating Officer Insp.B. D. Meena has identified the respondent No.2 as being the complainant of the FIR in question and also identified the petitioner as being the accused arrayed in the same FIR submitting to the effect that the co-accused, i.e. the mother of the petitioner has since expired.
The respondent no.2 in her deposition on oath in replies to specific Court queries has affirmed the factum of the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioner and also the factum of 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 aforementioned as well as the receipt of the total settled sum of Rs.8,50,000/- from the petitioner and has further stated that there are now no claims of hers left against the petitioner. She has further stated that in view of the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioner, she does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner seeking the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:23.04.2021 21:54:30 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
quashing of the FIR No. 638/2015, PS Badarpur, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor does she want the petitioner to be punished in relation thereto and that she has so stated voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter.
In reply to a specific Court query, the respondent no.2 has stated that she is a Post Graduate in Hindi and has done LLB and she is a practicing advocate and has understood the implications of the statement made by her.
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.
In view of the deposition of the respondent no.2, non-opposition on behalf of the State, 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 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:23.04.2021 21:54:30 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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 victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:23.04.2021 21:54:30 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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 important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:23.04.2021 21:54:30 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. 638/2015, PS Badarpur, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner Nos.1 to 7 are thus quashed.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
ANU MALHOTRA, J APRIL 19, 2021 ssc Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:23.04.2021 21:54:30 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI Item No. 37 CRL.M.C. 364/2021 ANIL SHARMA Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
19.04.2021 CW-1 Inspector B. D. Meena, PS Badar Pur I am the Investigating Officer of the FIR No. 638/2015, PS Badarpur, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. I identify the respondent no.2 who has joined the proceedings through video conferencing as being the complainant of the FIR in question. There were two accused persons arrayed in the FIR, one is the petitioner and the other was the mother-in-law of the respondent no.2 who has since been expired. I also identify the accused who has joined the proceedings through video conferencing as being the accused in the instant case.
RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J
19.04.2021
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:23.04.2021
21:54:30
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI Item No. 37 CRL.M.C. 364/2021 ANIL SHARMA Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
19.04.2021 CW-2 Ms. Aarti Sharma, D/o Sh. Surender Kumar Sharma, Aged 36 years, R/o 1480/E-53, Molarband Extension, Badarpur, New Delhi. ON S.A. I have no opposition to the FIR No. 638/2015, P.S. Badarpur under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the petitioner being quashed nor do I want the petitioner to be punished in relation thereto. I so state voluntarily of my own accord without any duress pressure or coercion from any quarter. There is a child born of the wedlock between me and the petitioner.
In view of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioner vide the MOU dated 21.07.2017, I have received the total settled sum of Rs.8,50,000/- from the petitioner and have also received a sum of Rs.35,000/- for the delay in institution of the present petition. The marriage between me and the petitioner has since been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the HMA, 1955 in HMA Petition No.1756/2018 vide a decree dated 12.11.2018 of the Court of the Judge, Family Courts, South-East, District, Saket, Delhi. Though an attempt was made to meet the minor child pursuant to the proceedings dated 08.02.2021 the minor child has not met me. I thus do not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner seeking the quashing of the FIR No. 638/2015, P.S. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:23.04.2021 21:54:30 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
Badarpur under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor do I want the petitioner to be punished in relation thereto. I have so stated voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter. I am a Post Graduate in Hindi and have done LLB and I am a practicing advocate and I have understood the implications of the statement made by me and I do not need to think again.
RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J
19.04.2021
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:23.04.2021
21:54:30
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.