Delhi High Court - Orders
Mohit Kain & Ors vs The State(Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 24 August, 2022
Author: Anu Malhotra
Bench: Anu Malhotra
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1402/2022, CRL.M.A. 7677/2022 & CRL.M.A.
11376/2022
MOHIT KAIN & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.P.S. Bhatti, Advocate with P-1
in-person.
versus
THE STATE(GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State
with SI Gaurav Yadav, PS Nand
Nagri.
Mr. Keshav Kumar, Advocate for R-2
with R-2 in-person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ORDER
% 24.08.2022 The petitioners vide the present petition seek the quashing of the FIR No. 808/2017, Police Station Nand Nagri, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 submitting to the effect that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties to the petition vide the settlement document dated 24.12.2018 arrived at the Counselling Cell of the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, KKD, Shahdara, in Ex.262/2017 between the respondent No.2 and the petitioner No.1 and in view of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.04.2022 arrived at between the respondent No.2 and the petitioners and that all claims of the respondent No.2 stand settled and that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent no.2 has since been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Signature Section 13B(2) of the HMA, 1955 in HMA No.1193/2019 vide a decree Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:26.08.2022 17:45:29 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
dated 07.01.2020 of the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Shahdara, KKD, Delhi, and that no useful purpose would be served by the continuation of the proceedings in relation to the present FIR.
The Investigating Officer of the case is present and has identified the petitioner No.1 and the proof of identity of the petitioner No.2 placed on the record i.e., petitioner No.1 Mr. Mohit Kain and petitioner No.2 Mr. Rohit Kain, as being the two accused put in column No.11 of the charge sheet and has testified to the effect that the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 arrayed to the present petition were put in column No.12 of the charge sheet and were not summoned by the learned Trial Court. The Investigating Officer has also stated that the two of the other accused in the instant case named Mr. Salek Ram and Mrs. Basanti, the parents of Mr. Mohit Kain, have since expired. Inter alia, the Investigating Officer has also identified the respondent no.2 Ms. Rachna @ Nancy as being the complainant of the said FIR.
The respondent no.2 in her deposition on oath in replies to specific Court queries by the Court affirms the factum of the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioner No.1 vide a settlement document dated 24.12.2018 arrived at the Counselling Cell of the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, KKD, Shahdara in Ex.262/2017 as also the Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.04.2022 arrived at between her and the petitioners and affirms the factum of the receipt of the total settled sum of Rs.6,35,000/- from the petitioners of which the entire amount except of the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in toto i.e., Rs. 75,000/- in the form of FDRs for each of the two minor children Siddharth Kain and Varun Kain born of the wedlock between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 in terms of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:26.08.2022 17:45:29 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
the settlement dated 21.04.2022 as averred in para 5 thereof which reads to the effect:-
"5. It is agreed between both the parties that two F.D.R of Rs. 75,000/- each in the name of children namely Siddharth Kain and Varun Kain aged 7 and 5 years shall be given before the hon'ble High court at the time of the quashing of the F.I.R.No.808/2017, U/S 498-A/406/34 I.P.C. P.S. Nand Nagari fixed for 26.04.2022."
The Kisan Vikas Patras for the sum of Rs.75,000/- each in the name of the two minor children Siddharth Kain and Varun Kain in original have since been handed over today during the course of the present proceedings by the petitioner No.1 to the respondent No.2 copies of which have been placed on record as Annexure F to the present petition and the said Kisan Vikas Patras bear the Account No.020030705251 in the name of Varun Kain and Account No.020030705804 in the name of Siddharth Kain and both are with dates of maturity of 03.06.2032 in each of them with amounts of maturity of Rs.1,50,000/- each, the respondent No.2 thus states that she does not have any claims left against the petitioners but seeks that the rights of the minor children in the property of the petitioners is protected.
She has further stated that she has signed her affidavit dated 02.02.2022 as well as the settlement document dated 24.12.2018 and the Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.04.2022 voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter and she states that she has studied till standard X. She further states that she has made her statement to the effect that she does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR in question nor does she want them to be punished in relation Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:26.08.2022 17:45:29 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
thereto voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter.
The petitioner No.1 in terms of the order dated 26.04.2022 of this Court has submitted the affidavit qua the protection of interest of the two minor children in terms of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganesh vs. Sudhirkumar Shrivastava & Ors. (2019) SCC OnLine 1107 as per which affidavit dated 26.05.2022, the petitioner No.1 has stated to the effect:-
"1. That I am petitioner no.1 in the abovementioned matter and am fully conversant with the facts of the case and can depose the same before this hon'ble court.
2. That the abovementioned petition u/s 482 CRPC for quashing of FIR NO.808/2017, U/S 498A/406/34 IPC and S.4 Dowry Prohibition Act PS NAND NAGRI DELHI has been drafted by counsel on my instructions.
6. I say that the Settlement dated 24/12/2018 (Annexure-C) relates only to the agreement in relation to the claims of the respondent no.2 qua me.
7. I say that the terms of Settlement dated 24/12/2018 (Annexure-C) shall not in any way be construed to curtail or impinge the rights of my abovementioned children to seek their claims/rights qua maintenance, education, property as per law against me.
8. I say that I have understood the contents of the present affidavit which have been explained to me by my counsel in my vernacular and that they are true and correct to my knowledge and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
9. I say that I have made my above statement after understanding the implications thereof, voluntarily of my own accord, without any duress, room Coercion or pressure from any quarter."
and in his deposition on oath in replies to specific Court queries undertakes to adhere to the terms of his affidavit dated 26.05.2022 and submits that Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:26.08.2022 17:45:29 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
despite the handing over of the Kisan Vikas Patras of the sum of Rs.75,000/- each qua the two minor children to the respondent No.2, the same shall not amount to any embargo qua the rights of the two minor children towards maintenance, education or otherwise in accordance with law against him.
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 of the respondent no.2.
In view of the deposition of the petitioner No.1 and the deposition of the respondent No.2 and her non-opposition to the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR No. 808/2017, Police Station Nand Nagri, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the identification of the respondent No.2 by the Investigating Officer of the case and non- opposition on behalf of the State to the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the said FIR, in as much as, the FIR has apparently emanated from a matrimonial discord between the petitioner 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 respondent No.2 and the two minor children born of the wedlock between the petitioner No.1 and 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:-
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:26.08.2022 17:45:29 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
"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 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:26.08.2022 17:45:29 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:26.08.2022 17:45:29 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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. 808/2017, Police Station Nand Nagri, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners are thus quashed.
It is made expressly clear that the quashing of the FIR No. 808/2017, Police Station Nand Nagri, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the decree of divorce through mutual consent between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 and the settlement arrived at between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 would not amount to any embargo on the two minor children Siddharth Kain and Varun Kain seeking their 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:26.08.2022 17:45:29 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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 AUGUST 24, 2022 ha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:26.08.2022 17:45:29 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI ITEM No.8 CRL.M.C. 1402/2022 MOHIT KAIN & ORS. versus THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
24.08.2022 CW-1 SI Gaurav, PS Nand Nagri.
ON S.A. I am the Investigating Officer of FIR No. 808/2017, Police Station Nand Nagri, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
There are total of six accused in this case of whom Mr. Salek Ram & Mrs. Basanti, the parents of Mr. Mohit Kain, have since expired. Two of the accused were put in column No.11 and two were put in column No.12. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have been put in column No.11 of the charge sheet and the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 were put in column No.12 of the charge sheet.
I identify the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 i.e., petitioner No.1 Mr. Mohit Kain and petitioner No.2 Mr. Rohit Kain. The petitioner Nos.3 and 4 were not summoned by the learned Trial Court.
I also identify the respondent no.2 Ms. Rachna @ Nancy present today in Court as being the complainant of the FIR in question.
RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J
24.08.2022
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:26.08.2022
17:45:29
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI ITEM No.8 CRL.M.C. 1402/2022 MOHIT KAIN & ORS. versus THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
24.08.2022 CW-2 Ms. Rachna @ Nancy, D/o Sh. Thakur Das, aged 32 years, R/o D2/180, Nand Nagri, Delhi.
ON S.A. My affidavit dated 02.02.2022 as well as the settlement document of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioner No.1 in Ex.262/2017 in the Counselling Cell of the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, KKD, Shahdara, dated 24.12.2018 and the Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.04.2022 arrived at between me and the petitioners bear my signatures thereon, which I have signed voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter.
There are two children of the wedlock between me and the petitioner No.1 who are in my custody.
In terms of the said Counselling Cell settlement document placed on record as Annexure C, a total sum of Rs.6,35,000/- had to be paid to me by the petitioners of which the entire amount except of the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in toto i.e., Rs. 75,000/- for each of the two children in terms of the settlement dated 21.04.2022 is yet to be received by me, which has now been handed over to me by the petitioner No.1 in the form of Kisan Vikas Patras, copies of which have been placed on record as Annexure F to the present petition. There are now no claims of mine left against the petitioners except that I seek that the rights of the two minor children in the property of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:26.08.2022 17:45:29 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
the petitioners is protected.
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.1193/2019 vide a decree dated 07.01.2020 of the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Shahdara, KKD, Delhi.
In view of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioners, I do not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR No. 808/2017, Police Station Nand Nagri, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 nor do I want them to be punished in relation thereto. All that I seek is that the rights of my children be protected.
I have studied till Standard X. 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
24.08.2022
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:26.08.2022
17:45:29
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI ITEM No.8 CRL.M.C. 1402/2022 MOHIT KAIN & ORS. versus THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
24.08.2022 CW-3 Mr. Mohit Kain, S/o Mr. Salek Ram, aged 34 years, R/o 1/3792, Bhagwan Pur, Khera, Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi. ON S.A. My affidavit dated 26.05.2022 bears my signatures thereon. I undertake to adhere to the terms of my affidavit dated 26.05.2022 despite the terms of the settlement between me and the respondent No.2 vide a settlement deed/Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.04.2022 as well as the Counselling Cell settlement document dated 24.12.2018 and clauses therein.
I state that the rights of the two minor children born of the wedlock between me and the respondent No.2 who are in the custody of the respondent No.2 qua maintenance, education and property shall be protected in accordance with law.
I have made my statement after understanding the implications thereof voluntarily.
RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J
24.08.2022
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:26.08.2022
17:45:29
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.