Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Gulbahar And Ors vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 23 November, 2021

Author: Chandra Dhari Singh

Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh

                          $~6
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      CRL.M.C. 2688/2021
                                 GULBAHAR AND ORS                                  ..... Petitioners
                                                   Through:     Mr. D.K. Panchal, Advocate

                                                   versus

                                 STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR         ..... Respondents
                                               Through: Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP along with
                                                        SI Amar Pal Singh, P.S. Jamia Nagar
                                                        Mr. Muqeem Ahmad, Advocate for
                                                        R-2
                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
                                         ORDER

% 23.11.2021

1. The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C) has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of FIR bearing No. 167/2019 under Sections 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as IPC) registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar, New Delhi.

2. All the petitioners are present before this Court and have been identified by their counsel Mr. D.K. Panchal, enrolment no. D/3/1992 and SI Amar Pal Singh Police Station Jamia Nagar. Mr. Gulbahar, Petitioner No.1 was the husband, Mohd. Mustaqeem, Petitioner No.2 was father-in-law, Mr. Shamsher, Petitioner No.3 was brother-in-law, Ms. Naseema Begum, Petitioner No.4 was mother-in-law, Mr. Alisher, Petitioner No.5 was brother-in-law (devar), Ms. Gulshan, Petitioner no. 6 was sister-in-law, Mr. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 2688/2021 Page 1 of 4 By:GAURAV SHARMA Signing Date:23.11.2021 17:13:28 Badrudden, Petitioner no.7 was maternal uncle of husband of complainant and Mr. Inam, Petitioner no.8 was maternal uncle of husband of complainant. Respondent No.2/complainant is also present before this Court and has been identified by her counsel Mr. Muqeem Ahmad, enrolment no. D/1036/2004 and SI Amar Pal Singh, Police Station Jamia Nagar. On the query made by this Court, respondent No.2 has categorically stated that she has entered into compromise on her own free will and without any pressure. It is also stated by respondent No.2 that the entire dispute has been amicably settled between the parties.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 married to each other on 28th September, 2015 according to Muslim rites and customs and no issue was born out from the wedlock, but due to some differences between them, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 started living separately since 12th December, 2018. Respondent No.2 had lodged an FIR bearing No. 167/2019 on 6th August, 2019 registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar, New Delhi under Section 498A/406/34 IPC.

4. The marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 stands dissolved by way of mutual consent by Memorandum of Understanding/Deed of Settlement. As per the settlement deed, Petitioner no. 1 shall pay a sum of Rs. 3, 00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) to the complainant/ respondent no. 2 as full and final settlement. The petitioner no. 1 has paid sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) at time of signing of the Memorandum of Understanding/ Deed of Settlement and remnaing amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) was at time of filing of the present petition.

5. It is submitted that the Petitioner no. 1 had pronounced the first Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 2688/2021 Page 2 of 4 By:GAURAV SHARMA Signing Date:23.11.2021 17:13:28 Talaq/Divorce through his advocate notice dated 19th September, 2020. Second Talaq/Divorce was pronounced through his advocate notice dated 19th October, 2020 and Third and Final Talaq/Divorce was pronounced through his advocate notice dated 19th November, 2020.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that as per the settlement between the parties, petitioner No.1 has paid the entire agreed amount to respondent No.2. Copy of the settlement dated 19th November, 2020 is appended with the petition as Annexure P-2.

7. Ms. Kusum Dhalla, learned APP for the State submits 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.

8. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. While exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the instant criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences which are private in nature and do not have serious impact on society on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between victim and offender, it is settled law that High Court is also required to consider the conduct and antecedents of the accused as also to set out whether the accused persons have managed with the complainant to enter into the compromise. In the present case, the complainant is present and has categorically stated that she has entered into compromise and settled the entire disputes amicably with petitioner No.1 and his family members without any pressure or coercion. There is also no allegation from respondent No.2 that the conduct and antecedents of petitioners are bad towards the complainant after the compromise. I have perused settlement deed appended as Annexure P-2. As per the settlement deed, the respondent No.2 has received the entire settled amount.

9. In the case of "B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors" 2003 (4) SCC 675, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if for purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of the power of quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

10. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. vs. Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr. (2013) 4 SCC 58", have held that criminal proceedings on FIR or complaint can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in appropriate cases in order to meet ends of justice. Even in non- compoundable offences pertaining to the matrimonial disputes, if Court is satisfied that parties have settled the disputes amicably and without any pressure, then the purpose of securing ends of justice, FIRs or complaints or subsequent criminal proceedings in respect of offences can be quashed.

11. In the instant case, as stated above, the parties have reached on the compromise and amicably settled the entire disputes without any pressure.

12. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and in the light of the other pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, FIR bearing No. 167/2019 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar, New Delhi and all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

13. The petition stands disposed of.

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J NOVEMBER 23, 2021 dy Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 2688/2021 Page 4 of 4 By:GAURAV SHARMA Signing Date:23.11.2021 17:13:28