Delhi High Court - Orders
Narender Sejwal & Ors vs State Of Delhi & Anr on 31 January, 2022
Author: Anu Malhotra
Bench: Anu Malhotra
$~46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2759/2021
NARENDER SEJWAL & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Hamid Ali, Advocate.
Petitioners through VC.
versus
STATE OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmed, APP for State.
SI Mamchand and SI Ram Niwas, PS
Malviya Nagar.
R-2 through VC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ORDER
% 31.01.2022 (Through Video Conferencing) The petitioners, vide the present petition seek the quashing of the FIR No.335/2020, PS Malviya Nagar, under Sections 354/354B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, qua which the Investigating Officer SI Mamchand, PS Malviya Nagar, states to the effect that the investigation conducted is in relation to the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 233/354/354B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the petition is thus treated as one qua the said offences.
The present Investigating Officer of the case is present and has identified the petitioner nos.1 to 3 i.e. petitioner No.1 Mr. Narender Sejwal, petitioner No.2 Mr. Surender Sejwal and petitioner No.3 Mr. Ramesh Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:01.02.2022 12:58:56 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
Chand, present through video conferencing, as being the three accused arrayed in FIR No.335/2020, PS Malviya Nagar, under Sections 233/354/354B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and has also identified the respondent no.2 Ms. Priti as being the complainant of the said FIR.
The respondent no.2 in her deposition on oath in replies to specific Court queries has affirmed having signed the affidavit dated 09.10.2021 as her non opposition to the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR No.335/2020, PS Malviya Nagar, under Sections 233/354/354B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and also testified having signed the settlement document dated 14.01.2021 as also the joint statement dated 24.03.2021 recorded in in HMA No.516/21 in proceedings under Section 13 (B) (1) of the HMA, 1955, voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter.
Inter alia, the respondent No.2 has testified to the dissolution of the marriage between her and the petitioner no.1 vide a decree of divorce dated 19.07.2021 in HMA No.880/2021 through mutual consent under Sections 13B(1) and 13B(2) of the HMA, 1955, of the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Courts, South Saket, New Delhi.
She has also affirmed the receipt of the total settled sum of Rs.2 lakhs from the petitioners of which a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs has been received by her previously and the balance sum of Rs.50,000/- has now been handed over by the petitioners during the course of the present proceedings vide a demand draft bearing No.174616 dated 31.12.2021 drawn on Punjab National Bank in her favour to her brother Mr. Vikram Singh s/o Sh. Suhkbir, who has joined the proceedings through video conferencing, whom the respondent No.2 identifies and she has stated that there are now no claims of hers left Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:01.02.2022 12:58:56 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
against the petitioners.
It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No.2 is unable to be present at the place where the demand draft is being handed over as she is suffering from a physical ailment.
The respondent No.2 in her deposition on oath apart from stating that she does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR No.335/2020, PS Malviya Nagar, under Sections 233/354/354B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, submits to the effect that the petitioners have since understood their mistakes and that she has moved on in her life and has remarried on 17.11.2021 and thus wants to live her own life without any problems anymore.
The respondent no.2 is apparently well educated having stated that she has done MA in Political Science and used to work as an In charge of the Centre with HelpAge India and that she has made her statement voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter and has also 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, identification of the petitioners 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:01.02.2022 12:58:56 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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 and for the well being of the respondent No.2, 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 andlay 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 : -
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:01.02.2022 12:58:56 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
"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, 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:01.02.2022 12:58:56 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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 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.335/2020, PS Malviya Nagar, under Sections 233/354/354B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner nos.1 to 3 i.e. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:01.02.2022 12:58:56 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
petitioner No.1 Mr. Narender Sejwal, petitioner No.2 Mr. Surender Sejwal and petitioner No.3 Mr. Ramesh Chand are thus quashed.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
ANU MALHOTRA, J JANUARY 31, 2022 ha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:01.02.2022 12:58:56 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI 46 CRL.M.C. 2759/2021 NARENDER SEJWAL & ORS. Versus STATE OF DELHI & ANR. 31.01.2022 CW-1. SI Mamchand PS Malviya Nagar ON S.A. I am the present Investigating Officer of FIR No.335/2020, PS Malviya Nagar, under Sections 233/354/354B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
I identify the petitioner Nos.1 to 3, petitioner No.1 Mr. Narender Sejwal, petitioner No.2 Mr. Surender Sejwal and petitioner No.3 Mr. Ramesh Chand, who have joined the proceedings through video conferencing, as being the three accused arrayed in the aforesaid FIR.
I also identify the respondent No.2 Ms. Priti, who has also joined the proceedings through video conferencing, as being the complainant of the said FIR.
RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J
31.01.2022
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:01.02.2022
12:58:56
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI 46 CRL.M.C. 2759/2021 NARENDER SEJWAL & ORS. Versus STATE OF DELHI & ANR. 31.01.2022 CW-2. Ms. Priti, d/o Sh. Sukhbir, r/o 3120, Somesh Vihar Colony, Kaba Mohalla, Near Shiv Mandir, Chhawla, New Delhi. ON S.A. My affidavit dated 09.10.2021, the settlement document dated 14.01.2021 as well as the statement dated 24.03.2021 recorded in HMA No.516/21 bear my signatures thereon which I have signed voluntarily of my own accord without any duress pressure or coercion from any quarter.
Pursuant to the said statement dated 24.03.2021, a total sum of Rs.2 lakhs had been agreed to be paid by the petitioners to me, of which a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- has been received by me previously during the course of the proceedings under Section 13 (B) (1) and Section 13 (B) (2) of the HMA and the balance sum of Rs.50,000/- has been received by my brother on my behalf, i.e., my brother Mr. Vikram Singh s/o Sh. Suhkbir, who has joined the proceedings through video conferencing and I identify him, vide a demand draft bearing No.174616 dated 31.12.2021 drawn on Punjab National Bank in my favour, in view thereof, I do not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR No.335/2020, PS Malviya Nagar, under Sections 233/354/354B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, nor do I want the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 to be punished in relation thereto, in as much as, they have understood their errors and I have also since moved on in life and have remarried after my divorce and I have since married on 17.11.2021 and I want to live my future life without any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:01.02.2022 12:58:56 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
problems now and I have so stated voluntarily.
The certified copy of the decree of divorce dated 19.07.2021 in HMA 880/2021 of the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Courts, South Saket, New Delhi is on the record.
I have done MA in Political Science and I used to work as an in charge of the Centre with HelpAge India earlier.
I have made my statement after understanding its implications and I do not want to think again. I have made my statement voluntarily of my own accord without any duress pressure or coercion from any quarter.
RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J
31.01.2022
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:01.02.2022
12:58:56
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.