Delhi High Court - Orders
Sanjay And Ors vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 10 October, 2023
Author: Jyoti Singh
Bench: Jyoti Singh
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 437/2022
SANJAY AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Shyoraj Bainsla, Advocate along
with Petitioner No.1 in person.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Sahni, APP for the State
with SI Arvind Kumar, PS Fatehpur Beri and
IO ASI Virender, Traffic.
Respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
ORDER
% 10.10.2023
1. Present petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.0050/2016 dated 21.01.2016 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS: Fatehpur Beri, New Delhi, including proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 11.03.2012 at New Delhi according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies and a female child was born out of the said wedlock, who at present is in care and custody of Respondent No.2. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are brothers-in-law of Respondent No.2 whereas Petitioner No.4 is her sister-in-law and Petitioner No.5 is the father-in-law.
3. On account of temperamental differences and disputes between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, a complaint was filed by Respondent No. 2 before CAW Cell, Saket, culminating in the present FIR. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 also filed a complaint under Section 12 of CRL.M.C. 437/2022 Page 1 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/10/2023 at 03:50:16 the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) against the Petitioners. However, during the pendency of the proceedings, parties have mutually resolved their disputes with the intervention of their well-wishers and relatives and a settlement has been arrived at between them wherein Petitioner No. 1 has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to Respondent No.2 in full and final settlement of all the claims of Respondent No. 2 including maintenance and istridhan as well as towards maintenance of the child. The custody of the child will remain with Respondent No.2 and pending petition under Section 12 of the DV Act shall be withdrawn by her. It was also settled that parties will file a joint petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent.
4. It is stated in the petition that in accordance with the terms of settlement, Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 had filed a joint petition for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent and marriage stands dissolved by a Decree of Divorce dated 08.11.2016, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-C to the present petition. Respondent No.2 is stated to have withdrawn the petition under the DV Act on 16.01.2017.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have re-married and are happily living with their respective spouses and a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- has been paid to Respondent No.2. It is further stated that accused No.6 i.e. mother of Petitioner No.1 namely, Smt. Ramvati has expired on 04.01.2016 and a document in support thereof issued by the Sarpanch of the Village has been filed.
6. Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 are present in Court and have been identified by the IO SI Arvind Kumar, PS Fatehpur Beri. Respondent No. 2 submits that all disputes between the parties have been resolved and she has CRL.M.C. 437/2022 Page 2 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/10/2023 at 03:50:16 remarried. She also confirms receipt of an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from Petitioner No. 1.
7. Power of the Court to quash criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement between the parties has been examined and delineated by the Supreme Court in a number of judgments. Emphasizing that the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, held that albeit the inherent power is of wide plentitude with no statutory limitation but must be exercised in accord with guidelines engrafted in such power viz.: to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of any Court. The Supreme Court cautioned that heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. cannot be fittingly quashed, however, criminal cases having overwhelming and predominantly civil flavor stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly, offences arising from commercial, civil disputes or those pertaining to matrimonial relationships etc. where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and parties have resolved their entire dispute. It was held thus:-
"61. .... But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite CRL.M.C. 437/2022 Page 3 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/10/2023 at 03:50:17 full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
8. In Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another, (2013) 4 SCC 58, the Supreme Court deliberated on the scope and ambit of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the context of matrimonial disputes and observed that inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are wide and unfettered and that 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 Court is satisfied that parties have settled the same amicably and without pressure, for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power for quashing of FIR or subsequent proceedings. It would be relevant to quote few passages from the said judgment as follows:-
"14. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S. Joshi [(2003) 4 SCC 675 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 848] , this Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings where dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered into between the parties who are willing to settle their differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said decision is directly applicable to the case on hand and the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement arrived at.
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 CRL.M.C. 437/2022 Page 4 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/10/2023 at 03:50:17 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. The 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. We also make it clear that exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. It is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of the Code enables the High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enables this Court to pass such orders."
9. In view of the settlement between the parties, particularly, looking to the fact that both Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 have remarried and no dispute remains, continuing the criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and would not sub-serve the ends of justice and would rather be an unnecessary burden on the State machinery and the Courts. [Ref.: Ankit Kumar & Ors. v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9980 and Shyama Devi and Others v. NCT of Delhi, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5895].
10. At this stage, Petitioner No.1, as a goodwill gesture, volunteers to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the name of his minor daughter in an interest bearing Fixed Deposit Receipt with a Nationalised Bank on auto-renewal mode. It is made clear that the money will remain invested till the child CRL.M.C. 437/2022 Page 5 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/10/2023 at 03:50:17 attains majority and will not be encashed by the concerned Bank. Once the child attains majority, she would be at liberty to deal with the FDR at her will. If the money is required for an emergency before the said period for the welfare of child, an application will have to be filed before the Court to seek permission explaining the reason to withdraw the money.
11. For all the aforesaid reasons and in view of the compromise between the parties, this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashes the FIR bearing No.0050/2016 dated 21.01.2016 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS: Fatehpur Beri, New Delhi along with all proceedings emanating therefrom, subject to Petitioner No.1 investing the aforementioned sum of Rs.50,000/-, as undertaken, within four weeks from today. Copy of the FDR shall be filed with the Registry within a week thereafter and in case of non-compliance, petition shall be listed by the Registry before Court.
12. It is further made clear that as per the binding dictum of the Supreme Court in Ganesh v. Sudhirkumar Shrivastava and Others, (2020) 20 SCC 787, the terms of settlement arrived at between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 with respect to maintenance etc. will not impact the rights of the female child and she will be entitled to enforce all her rights available in law, if and when required.
13. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
JYOTI SINGH, J OCTOBER 10, 2023/KA/shivam CRL.M.C. 437/2022 Page 6 of 6 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/10/2023 at 03:50:18