Chattisgarh High Court
Nikhil Nathani vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 December, 2022
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1927 of 2022
1. Nikhil Nathani S/o Shankarlal Nathani, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o - 7A, Ganpati Nagar, Behind Rotary Club, Jalgaon
District - Jalgaon, Maharashtra.
2. Shankarlal Nathani S/o Late Sajan Das Nathani, Aged about
60 Years, R/o -7A, Ganpati Nagar, Behind Rotary Club,
Jalgaon, District - Jalgaon, Maharashtra.
3. Shobha Nathani W/o Shankarlal Nathani, Aged About 57
Years, R/o - 7A, Ganpati Nagar, Behind Rotary Club,
Jalgaon, District - Jalgaon, Maharashtra.
4. Lakshmi Parswani W/o Vishal Parswani, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Paraswani House Sindhi Colony, District -
Aurangabad, Maharashtra, City Chowk, Aurangabad City,
Maharashtra, India.(As per FIR).
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through SHO, P.S. - Mahila Thana,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Chandni Nathani W/o Nikhil Nathani, Aged about 28 years,
R/o - Ruprela Marg, Bajaj Bhavan, Fafadih, Raipur,
Chattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioners Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State Mr. Wasim Miyan, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2 Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 07.12.2022
1. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in brevity 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of First Information Report ('FIR') No.82/2022 dated 08.05.2022 under Sections 498A, 377 and 34 of 2 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity 'IPC') registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Raipur (C.G.) along with all consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise.
2. Facts of the case are that petitioner No.1 Nikhil Nathani was married to respondent No.2 Chandni Nathani on 21.02.2018. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged by respondent No.2 against her husband and other family members and offence was registered under Sections 498A, 377 and 34 of IPC. It is contended that petitioner No.1 Nikhil Nathani and respondent No.2 Chandni Nathani have parted their ways. It is further contended that settlement in between the parties has been arrived at and by way of deed of settlement dated 19.10.2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute arose between the parties is purely a matrimonial dispute arising out of personal discord and the FIR was a result of matrimonial dispute between them. He further submits that both the parties have settled their dispute vide deed of settlement dated 19.10.2022. It is further contended that as the parties have recorded their statements on 29.11.2022 and they have recorded that the dispute arose between them is amicably settled, FIR No.82/2022 be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 supported the 3 submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and admitted the contents of the deed of settlement (Annexure P/2) wherein, it has been stated that she has no objection, if FIR in question is quashed.
5. Learned State counsel submits that they have no objection in compromise of the matter between the parties.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. For ready reference, deed of settlement dated 19.10.2022 executed between the parties is quoted below :
DEED OF SETTLEMENT "THIS DEED OF SETTLEMENT is being entered into on this 19th day of October, 2022 at Raipur (C.G.). BY AND BETWEEN:
Mrs. Chandni Nikhil Nathani, w/o Mr. Nikhil Nathani, d/o Lt. Shri Wadhaya Ram Bajaj, aged about 28 years, residing at Ruprela Marg, Bajaj Bhavan, Fafadih, Raipur 492001 (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as First Party);
AND Mr. Nikhil Nathani, S/o Mr. Shankar Lal Nathani, aged about 29 years, residing at 7A, Ganpati Nagar, Behind Rotary Club, Jalgaon (M.H.) (hereinafter referred to as Second Party);
Both the parties together shall be referred to as "Parties."
WHEREAS the marriage between the Parties was solemnized on 21/02/2018 at Jalgaon (M.H.) in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies, in the presence of friends, relatives and family members. AND WHEREAS the First Party has made a complaint to the police of police station: Mahila Thana, Raipur and the police has registered an FIR bearing 4 No.82/2022 under Sections 498A, 377 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the Second Party and others.
AND WHEREAS the First Party has also made a complaint dated 15.06.2022 against the Second Party and others before Sakhi Centre, Byron Bazaar, Raipur (C.G.) under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. AND WHEREAS the Second Party has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights against the First Party before the Family Court, Jalgaon (M.H.) whereby a case bearing no. Petition A No. 117/2022 has been registered and is pending adjudication. AND WHEREAS subsequent to the lodging of the complaints, efforts were made between the Parties to amicable resolve the disputes and after active participation of the Parties and their family members, observing that the marriage has broken beyond repair, all the disputes between the Parties have been resolved with an amicable settlement which is being witnessed as under:
1. That both the parties shall file a petition seeking mutual divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Courts at Jalgaon (M.H.).
2. That the Second Party shall pay a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Fifty Thousand only) to the First Party towards full and final settlement of all her claims i.e. maintenance, permanent alimony etc.
3. That the Second Party shall return all the Stridhan and Jewellery of the First Party (as enumerated in the list annexed herewith) to the First Party and the First Party on the receipt of the same shall provide an acknowledgment of the same to the Second Party.
4. That the custody of the son of the Parties, Master Kartik Nathani shall be with the First Party only.
5. That the Parties have mutually decided to not pursue and withdraw their respective cases as filed against each other.
6. That the Second Party shall withdraw its application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, while the First Party shall not press and withdraw its complaint before the Sakhi Centre under the provisions of Protection of Women from 5 Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
7. That the Parties shall move to Hon'ble High Court Chhattisgarh to get the FIR bearing No.82/2022 under Sections 498A, 377, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending investigation with Police Station Mahila Thana, Raipur (C.G.), quashed in accordance with the Deed of Settlement.
8. That the Second Party shall cooperate with the First Party getting the FIR bearing No.82/2022, Police Station Mahila Thana, Raipur (C.G.) quashed by signing affidavits, petition and all the required documents necessary to do the needful and also appear before any court of law for recording of statement as and when required.
9. That with the execution of this Settlement Deed, all the past, present, future, claim, dispute, differences, litigation, right, entitlement and interest of either Party against each other and their families stand settled and neither Party shall have any right, claim, etc. against the other Party or its property (movable or immovable, joint or ancestral, self-
acquired or HUF). The Second Party shall have no further right to initiate any action against the First Party.
10. That with effect of signing of this Settlement Deed, nothing remains to be settled pertaining to the Parties and the disputes mentioned hereinabove.
11. That this Settlement Deed is being simultaneously executed in two original copies, each of which shall be in possession of each Party. THAT both the First Party and the Second Party have read over and understood all the contents of this Settlement Deed and have signed the same without any force or pressure from any side, at their own free will.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have said and subscribed their respective signatures hereto in the presence of witnesses and mediator who are identifying the executants on the day, month and year first above written."
8. Statement of respondent No.2 was recorded before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court wherein she has 6 made categorical statement that she do not want to prosecute her complaint as the dispute arose between petitioners and herself is amicably settled and she has no objection if the FIR No.82/2022 be quashed.
9. With respect to compounding the offence, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 has laid down the following principles :
"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus:
the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences 7 committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.
10. Further, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, their Lordships again reiterated the view taken in case of Gian Singh (supra) and has laid down the following propositions : 8
"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions :
16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non- compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power; 16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;
16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature 9 and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society.
The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;
16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants,the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."
10
11. Perusal of the statement of respondent No.2 and deed of settlement would show that respondent No.2 has received an amount of Rs.11,50,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) towards full and final settlement of all her claims i.e. maintenance, permanent alimony, etc. and she do not want to prosecute her complaint.
12. Since the parties have arrived at a compromise, in order to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with FIR No.82/2022.
13. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.82/2022 dated 08.05.2022 under Sections 498A, 377 and 34 of IPC registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Raipur (C.G.) along with all consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR, is quashed in terms of deed of settlement dated 19.10.2022, which is reproduced in earlier paragraph. The petitioners are acquitted of the said charges.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Yogesh