Delhi High Court - Orders
Sayash Mishra vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 22 November, 2021
Author: Anu Malhotra
Bench: Anu Malhotra
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2073/2021 & CRL.M.A. 18449/2021
SAYASH MISHRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner no.1 in person through VC
with Mr.Yashpal Singh, Advocate.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Mukesh Kumar, APP for State
with initial IO, SI Jagroshni and
deputed IO, SI Preeti, PS Lodhi
Colony.
R-2 in person through VC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ORDER
% 22.11.2021 In terms of proceedings dated 06.09.2021, in as much as, it had been submitted on behalf of the State by the learned APP for the State that there were two other accused arrayed in the instant case i.e. the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the respondent no.2 as per the charge sheet who were not made parties to the present petition.
On behalf of the petitioners, has been submitted CRL.M.A.18449/2021 seeking to bring on record the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 i.e. the former parent-in-laws of the respondent no.2 as the parties to the petition along with the supporting affidavits and the amended memo of CRL.M.C. 2073/2021 Page 1 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:23.11.2021 17:51:01 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
parties and the amended petition which is thus, taken on record and through the amended petition, the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 seek the quashing of the FIR No.152/2018, PS Lodhi Colony under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The initial Investigating Officer of the case, SI Jagroshni is present and has identified the petitioner no.1 who has joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing as being one of the accused arrayed in FIR No.152/2018, PS Lodhi Colony under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and has stated that the other two accused are the former father-in-law and mother-in-law of the respondent no.2 and she has also identified the respondent no.2 as being the complainant thereof.
The respondent no.2 in her deposition on oath in replies to specific Court queries has affirmed the factum of having signed the settlement agreement dated 18.12.2020 arrived at between her and the petitioner no.1. She has further stated that in terms of the said settlement arrived at between her and the petitioner no.1, a total sum of Rs.8,25,000/- was payable to her by the petitioners and that she has received the entire settled amount from the petitioner no.1 and that there are no claims of hers left against the petitioners. The respondent no.2 has also affirmed the factum of the dissolution of marriage between her and the petitioner no.1 vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the HMA, 1955 in HMA No.377/2021 vide a decree dated 21.06.2021 of the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, KKD Courts, Shahdara, Delhi. She has further stated that the minor child born of the wedlock between her and CRL.M.C. 2073/2021 Page 2 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:23.11.2021 17:51:01 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
the petitioner no.1 is in her custody and that she has since re-married on 18.07.2021.
In reply to a specific Court query, the respondent no.2 has stated that she has done her M.A., B.Ed and that she is a TGT teacher and has understood the implications of the statement made by her that she has arrived at a settlement with the petitioners voluntarily and thus, she does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 seeking the quashing of the FIR No.152/2018, PS Lodhi Colony under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor does she want them to be punished in relation thereto.
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 settlement arrived at between the parties and the deposition made by the respondent no.2.
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 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-
CRL.M.C. 2073/2021 Page 3 of 7Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:23.11.2021 17:51:01 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
being of the minor child, 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 : -
"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 CRL.M.C. 2073/2021 Page 4 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:23.11.2021 17:51:01 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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 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 CRL.M.C. 2073/2021 Page 5 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:23.11.2021 17:51:01 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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.152/2018, PS Lodhi Colony under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 i.e. the petitioner no.1 Sayash Mishra, petitioner no.2 Anil Kumar Mishra and petitioner no.3 Renu Mishra.are thus quashed.
However, it is made expressly clear that despite the term vide Clause 6 in the Memorandum of Settlement dated 18.12.2020 on the record between CRL.M.C. 2073/2021 Page 6 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:23.11.2021 17:51:01 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
the parties whereby, it has been agreed between the parties to the effect:-
"6. That the First Party will pay a total sum of Rs.8,25,000/- (Rupees Eight Lac Twenty Five Thousand only) to the Second Party towards full and final settlement. This will be inclusive of all the claims for maintenance for herself and the minor, education expenses for the minor child, permanent alimony, stridhan etc.", there can be no embargo and shall not be an embargo on the rights of the minor child seeking his claims against the petitioners qua maintenance or otherwise in accordance with law in view of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal 4031-4032/2019 arising out of SLP (C) Nos.32868-32869/2018 titled as Ganesh Vs. Sudhirkumar Shrivastava & Ors. vide the verdict dated 22.04.2019 as adhered to and followed by this Court in Rakesh Jain & Ors. vs. State & Anr. in CRL.M.C. 2935/2019 dated 06.09.2019.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
ANU MALHOTRA, J NOVEMBER 22, 2021 'Neha Chopra' CRL.M.C. 2073/2021 Page 7 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:23.11.2021 17:51:01 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI 12 CRL.M.C. 2073/2021 SAYASH MISHRA versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 22.11.2021 CW-1 SI Jagroshni, PS Rashtrapati Bhawan previously posted at PS Lodhi Colony.
ON S.A. I am the Investigating Officer of FIR No.152/2018, PS Lodhi Colony under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
I identify the petitioner no.1 who has joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing as being one of the accused arrayed in the aforesaid FIR. The petitioner nos.2 & 3 as per the amended memo of parties are the former parent-in-laws of the respondent no.2 and I also identify the respondent no.2 Ms.Anjali Bhardwaj who has also joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing as being the complainant thereof.
RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J
22.11.2021
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:23.11.2021
17:51:01
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI 12 CRL.M.C. 2073/2021 SAYASH MISHRA versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 22.11.2021 CW-2 Ms.Anjali Bhardwaj, D/o Sh.Ashok Sharma, aged 32 years, R/o A-Block, Dilshad Colony. C-2, Palika Niwas, Lodhi Colony is my parental address.
ON S.A. The settlement deed dated 18.12.2020 bears my signatures thereon which I have signed voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter. In terms of the said settlement, a total sum of Rs.8,25,000/- was to be paid to me by the petitioner no.1, which entire amount has since been received by me and there are now no claims of mine left against the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 i.e. the petitioner no.1 Sayash Mishra, petitioner no.2 Anil Kumar Mishra and petitioner no.3 Renu Mishra.
The marriage between me and the petitioner no.1 has since been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the HMA, 1955 in HMA No.377/2021 vide a decree dated 21.06.2021 of the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, KKD Courts, Shahdara, Delhi. The minor child born of the wedlock between me and the petitioner no.1 is in my custody. I have since re-married on 18.07.2021.
In view of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioner no.1, I do not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 seeking the quashing of the FIR No.152/2018, PS Lodhi Colony under Sections Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:23.11.2021 17:51:01 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor do I want the petitioners to be punished in relation thereto.
I have done my M.A., B.Ed and I am a TGT teacher. I have made my statement after understanding its implications voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter and I do not need to think again.
RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J
22.11.2021
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:23.11.2021
17:51:01
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.