Delhi High Court
Anurag Chopra And Others vs State And Others on 26 May, 1989
ORDER
1. By this petition under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners seek an order quashing FIR No. 198/88 dated 6th July, 1988 for offences under sections 498-A/406 of the Indian Penal Code registered at PS Srinivaspuri, New Delhi. The plea is that the petitioner No. 1 Mr. Anurag Chopra was married to respondent No. 2 Mrs. Sangita Chopra on 28th November, 1985 but owing to temperamental differences the relations between them became strained and petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 father and mother of said Mr. Anurag Chopra. Complaints were filed by both the sides with the police and other authorities leveling allegations of harassment and cruelty against each other.
2. A case vide FIR 198/88 was registered on a complaint lodged by respondent No. 2 on 2nd May, 1988 with the Assistant Commissioner of Police (south) Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, who after enquiry ordered the registration of a case under sections 498-A/406, IPC against all the three petitioners. It is now pleaded that subsequently due to intervention of relatives and friends a settlement has been reached between the parties to the effect that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 shall seek a decree of divorce by mutual consent as they have come to the conclusion that they could no longer live together as husband and wife. As part of reconciliation efforts, formal compromise was drawn up on 4th September, 1988 whereunder it had been agreed that petitioner No. 1 shall pay to respondent No. 2 a sum of Rs. 75,000/- in all towards all claims of her on account of Stridhan, dowry, maintenance and alimony and further that she would be entitled to take possession of all the articles which were seized by the police on registration of the case which were on superdari with her and in addition Kelvinator Fridge, (165 Litres) would be returned to her. Simultaneously with the execution of this compromise respondent No. 2 addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (South Delhi), Hauz Khas, New Delhi stating, with the intervention of certain relatives and friends and on the advice of certain other persons of repute a compromise has been arrived at between her and her husband and they have decided to separate by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, and that her husband had agreed to pay to her in all Rs. 75,000/- towards all claims on account of items of jewellery and other valuable items, against him and his parents, which amount shall also cover all her claims present or future towards compensation dowry, maintenance and alimony and that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- has been left in trust with Shri O. N. Vohra, a retired Judge of this Court and Shri K. K. Luthra, Senior Advocate and the balance of Rs. 35,000/- was agreed to be paid within a period of 6 to 8 weeks. She stated, because of this mutual settlement she did not desire any further proceedings in the case registered vide FIR 198/88 and prayed that the case may be cancelled as she did not want to pursue the matter and that the opposite party has no objection to the return of the goods to her, seized during investigation.
3. Pursuant to this compromise the husband and wife, namely, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 moved an application under S. 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as amended by the Marriage laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 for a decree of divorce by mutual consent which was received in the Court of Ms. Rekha Sharma, Additional District Judge on 7th September, 1988 where statements were recorded. After recording statements that the parties are advised to patch up their differences and live together as husband and wife, the Court ordered that the file be consigned reserving to them the rights to move a second motion for divorce in case they are unable to reconcile their differences within the statutory period prescribed under S. 13-B(2) of the aforesaid Act.
4. It is now stated that since due to temperamental differences reconciliation was not possible, respondent No. 2 moved a petition of second motion under S. 13-B(2) of the Act, notice of which was served on Shri Anurag Chopra, petitioner No. 1 as respondent and he raised no objection to the grant of decree as prayed by respondent No. 2. Consequently, after recording of the statements of the parties on 8th May, 1989, the Additional District Judge has passed an order dissolving the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, recording that they will be bound by the statements made in Court on 8th May, 1989. One of the terms as agreed to between the parties and as reflected by the statement recorded on 8th May, 1989 was that the amount of Rs. 35,000/- which stands deposited in Court by petitioner No. 1 shall be withdrawn by respondent No. 2 after the criminal proceedings pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate against him and his parents were quashed.
5. The present petition has been moved accordingly seeking an order of this Court in exercise of inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR 198/88 dated 6th July, 1988 under sections 498-A/406, IPC registered at PS Srinivaspuri and dropping of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners pending in the Court in that connection. On notice being served respondent No. 2 has conceded the correctness of the averments made in the petition to the effect that on intervention of relatives and friends there has been a settlement between the parties as formalised in compromise dated 4th September, 1988, and that it was agreed between the parties that respondent No. 2 shall not pursue her complaint with the police made on 2nd May 1988 on the basis of which case vide FIR 198/88 was registered. It has also been not denied that she has received a sum of Rs. 40,000/- out of the settlement amount of Rs. 75,000/- and that the balance amount of Rs. 35,000/- that has been deposited by petitioner No. 1 in the Court of Ms. Rekha Sharma, Additional District Judge, Delhi has been agreed to be payable to her after the criminal proceedings are quashed and this petition (Cr.M. (M) No. 638 of 1989) under section 482, Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners has been disposed of by this Court. It is also conceded that she has got possession of the articles recovered during investigation and also a Kelvinator Fridge (165 Litres) and that the amount of Rs. 75,000/- represents her total claim towards dowry, Stridhan, maintenance and alimony and after she received the balance amount of Rs. 35,000/-, she shall be left with no claim outstanding against the petitioners on any account.
6. Ms. Swarana Mahajan appearing for the petitioners pleaded that on account of this settlement between the parties, all differences existing between them have been compromised, and now when finally petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have separated by means of a decree of dissolution of marriage by mutual consent passed by the Court of Additional District Judge and in view of the written request made by respondent No. 2, the complainant herself to the Deputy Commissioner of Police by her letter dated 4th September, 1988 that in view of the compromise, she is not interested in prosecution of the petitioners, it was a fit case where this Court can intervene in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, and order quashing of the proceedings. She further stated that even the report of the police was for cancellation of the case because the settlement had been reached between the parties even before any charge-sheet was filed in Court, and in fact the final report was that the case be cancelled but the Metropolitan Magistrate exercising jurisdiction in the matter did not accept that report for the reason that he did not have any inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings, and ordered that accused be summoned to face trial in the case registered against them.
7. Respondent No. 2 has been served with notice of the petition and Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate appeared for her and reply has been filed conceding the correctness of the averments in the petition, although it is added that while allowing the prayer of the petitioners, an order may also be passed that the amount of Rs. 35,000/- lying in deposit in the Court of Ms. Rekha Sharma, Additional District Judge, Delhi be ordered to be paid to respondent No. 2.
8. I have given my careful thought to the matter and I find that the agreed position now is that respondent No. 2, who is complainant in the case has given in writing to the Deputy Commissioner of Police that because of the mutual settlement she was not interested in pursuing the case on FIR 198/88 and that the case be cancelled as she did not want to continue with the matter. As already noticed even the final report of the police recommended for cancellation of the case. It is a different matter that the Magistrate concerned did not accept that report for the reason of want of powers to quash proceedings. This Court does not suffer from any such handicap. On the other hand it has ample powers under section 482, Cr.P.C. to pass such order, as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, or to procure and advance ends of justice.
9. Ms. Swarana Mahajan relied on the Supreme Court judgments to the effect that one of the circumstances that may prevail with the High Court to pass an order under section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal proceedings in a given case, would be if chances of success of prosecution are bleak or there is no likelihood of the accused being convicted, on the state of the evidence, as then existing. Decisions are :-
(i) State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, and
(ii) Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, .
10. In the later case it has been held in unequivocal terms, where the Court finds that chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak, then no useful purpose was likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue and in that event the Court may take into consideration special facts of the case and quash the proceedings even though they may be at a preliminary stage. In the following decision also, one of the tests that may prevail with the High Court while considering a petition under section 482, Cr.P.C. has been recognised by the Supreme Court in the following words :-
"In the exercise of the wholesome power under S. 482, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed ......"
11. The Court further held :
"For the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused the Court possesses, comparatively wider discretion in the exercise of which it can determine the question whether the material on the record, if unrebutted, is such on the basis of which a conviction can be said reasonably to be possible."
12. It is manifest that the whole case is based on the complaint of respondent No. 2, and she herself had given in writing addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Police long before the case was even sent to Court that because of the mutual settlement and terms of the compromise recorded in writing she was not interested in proceeding in the criminal case to continue against her husband and his parents. Applying the test laid down by the Supreme Court judgment quoted above, it is clearly a case where there is no expectation or even a remote chance of the prosecution resulting in conviction of the accused persons. The policy of law should be to prevent unnecessary litigation. This is one such case where continuation of the proceedings would be futile exercise resulting in wastage of public time and money and unnecessary harassment to the parties. In such situations, the Courts have recognised the futility of continuing the proceedings. In almost an identical case. Punjab and Haryana High Court in Pardeep Kumar v. State of Punjab, (1988) 2 Chand LR (Cri) 694 opined that in such situation when the parties have come to a compromise it was in the interest of the family and society as a whole that the criminal proceedings are quashed, observing that the Court cannot be expected to be a silent spectator to wait for the ultimate order. In view of the above facts, and circumstances as noticed in the foregoing discussion, I find it a fit case where invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court; the petition is allowed and it is directed that the case registered vide FIR 198/88 for offences under sections 498-A/406, IPC registered at PS Srinivaspuri in which all the three petitioners are the accused, is hereby quashed and the result is that the criminal proceedings pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi are dropped. Ordered accordingly. No further directions are necessary because parties have already given their undertakings in the Matrimonial Court of Miss Rekha Sharma, Additional District Judge, Delhi.
13. No order as to costs.
14. Petition allowed.