Delhi High Court - Orders
Deepak Kumar & Ors vs State & Anr on 21 December, 2021
Author: Anu Malhotra
Bench: Anu Malhotra
$~53
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3384/2021 & CRL.M.A. 20505/2021
DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner nos.1, 3 & 4 in person with
Mr.Kunwarpal Singh, Advocate.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Izhar Ahmed, APP for State with
SI Rajveer, PS Neb Sarai.
R-2 in person with Ms.Preeti Singh,
Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ORDER
% 21.12.2021 CRL.M.A. 20505/2021 (Ex.) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 3384/2021The petitioner no.2 is not present. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.2 is unwell and bed ridden.
The petitioners, vide the present petition seek the quashing of the FIR No.813/2015, PS Neb Sarai under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 submitting to the effect that a settlement has been arrived at between the petitioners and the respondent no.2 executed between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 vide a settlement deed dated CRL.M.C. 3384/2021 Page 1 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:22.12.2021 14:21:21 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
21.10.2020 pursuant to which the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 has been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the HMA, 1955 in HMA Petition No.1020/2021 vide a decree dated 09.08.2021 of the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi and there are no claims of the respondent no.2 against the petitioners and thus, no useful purpose would be served by the continuation of the proceedings qua the present FIR.
The deputed Investigating Officer of the case, SI Rajveer is present today in Court and has identified the petitioner no.1 Deepak Kumar, petitioner no.3 Ved Prakash and petitioner no.4 Preeti who are present today in Court as being the three of the five accused arrayed in FIR No.813/2015, PS Neb Sarai under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and has also identified the respondent no.2 Ms.Radha Rani who is also present in Court today as being the complainant of the said FIR.
The respondent no.2 in her deposition on oath has identified the proof of identity placed at page 36 of the petition as being that of Savitri i.e. the petitioner no.2 and has affirmed the factum that Mr.Om Prakash, father of the petitioner no.1 has since expired. The respondent no.2 in replies to specific Court queries has affirmed having signed her affidavit dated 01.12.2021 as well as the settlement deed dated 21.10.2020 qua which she states that she has signed the same voluntarily of her own accord without any coercion from any quarter. She 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 as aforementioned and has also stated that in CRL.M.C. 3384/2021 Page 2 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:22.12.2021 14:21:21 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
terms of the settlement dated 21.10.2020, the settlement has been arrived at without any consideration of any kind and that there are no claims of hers left against the petitioners. The respondent no.2 has also testified to the effect that there is a minor child i.e. a son aged 6 years born of the wedlock between her and the petitioner no.1 which in terms of the settlement dated 21.10.2020 is in the custody of the respondent no.2 and shall continue to remain in her custody and that the petitioner no.1 shall have the visitation and meeting rights in terms of the settlement on the record as per the mutual understanding between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 further states that she undertakes to adhere to the said terms of the settlement. She has further stated that she has studied till Standard XII and that she works.
The respondent no.2 further states that she does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR No.813/2015, PS Neb Sarai under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor does she want them to be punished in relation thereto and that she has arrived at a settlement with the petitioners voluntarily of her own accord.
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.
In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties 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, in as much as, the FIR has apparently emanated from a matrimonial discord CRL.M.C. 3384/2021 Page 3 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:22.12.2021 14:21:21 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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, for maintenance of peace and harmony between the parties and for the well-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 and lay 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 CRL.M.C. 3384/2021 Page 4 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:22.12.2021 14:21:21 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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 CRL.M.C. 3384/2021 Page 5 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:22.12.2021 14:21:21 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.813/2015, PS Neb Sarai under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner nos.1 to 4 are thus CRL.M.C. 3384/2021 Page 6 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:22.12.2021 14:21:21 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
quashed.
It is made expressly clear however, that despite the factum that there is not a single averment in the settlement deed dated 21.10.2020 in relation to any rights qua the child other than the visitation rights, it is apparent that the respondent no.2, the mother of the minor child cannot give up the rights of the minor child against the petitioner no.1 qua maintenance or otherwise.
In the circumstances, the quashing of the FIR No.813/2015, PS Neb Sarai under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the decree of divorce through mutual consent between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 would not amount to any embargo on 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 DECEMBER 21, 2021 NC CRL.M.C. 3384/2021 Page 7 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:22.12.2021 14:21:21 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI 53 CRL.M.C. 3384/2021 DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS. versus STATE & ANR. 21.12.2021 CW-1 SI Rajveer, PS Neb Sarai.
ON S.A. I have been deputed to attend the proceedings of FIR No.813/2015, PS Neb Sarai under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
There were five accused arrayed in the aforesaid FIR. I identify the petitioner no.1 Deepak Kumar, petitioner no.3 Ved Prakash and petitioner no.4 Preeti who are present today in Court as being the three of the five accused arrayed in the said FIR. I am unable to identify the proof of identify of Savitri i.e. the petitioner no.2 placed at page 36 of the petition.
I also identify the respondent no.2 Ms.Radha Rani who is also present in Court today as being the complainant of the said FIR.
RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J
21.12.2021
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:22.12.2021
14:21:21
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI 53 CRL.M.C. 3384/2021 DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS. versus STATE & ANR. 21.12.2021 CW-1 Ms.Radha Rani, D/o Shri Rajender Kumar, R/O L-1668/9-B, Church Colony, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi-110062. ON S.A. I identify the proof of identity placed at page 36 of the petition as being that of Savitri i.e. the petitioner no.2. Mr.Om Prakash, father of the petitioner no.1 has since expired.
My affidavit dated 01.12.2021 bears my signatures thereon, which I have signed voluntarily of my own accord. The settlement deed dated 21.10.2020 also bears my signatures thereon, which I have also signed voluntarily of my own accord without any coercion from any quarter. In view of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioner no.1, the marriage between me and the petitioner no.1 has been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the HMA, 1955 in HMA Petition No.1020/2021 vide a decree dated 09.08.2021 of the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi. In view of the said settlement, there are no claims of mine left against the petitioners and I have arrived at this settlement with the petitioners voluntarily.
In view of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioner no.1, the minor child i.e. a son aged 6 years born of the wedlock between me and the petitioner no.1 is in my custody and is to remain in my custody. I undertake to abide by the terms of the settlement that the petitioner no.1 can Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:22.12.2021 14:21:21 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
meet the minor child and have visitation and meeting rights as per mutual understanding between the petitioner no.1 and myself.
In view of the said settlement, I do not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR No.813/2015, PS Neb Sarai under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor do I want them to be punished in relation thereto.
I have studied till Standard XII and I work. I have made my statement after understanding the implications thereof 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
21.12.2021
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:22.12.2021
14:21:21
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.