Delhi High Court - Orders
Sunny Malhotra And Others vs The State Nct Of Delhi And Another on 9 October, 2023
Author: Jyoti Singh
Bench: Jyoti Singh
$~77
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 7289/2023
SUNNY MALHOTRA AND OTHERS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Pawan Kapoor, Advocate along
with Petitioner No.1 in person.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for
State with SI Ranjana, P.S. Subzi Mandi.
Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate for R-2 with R-2 in
person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
ORDER
% 09.10.2023 CRL.M.A. 27208/2023 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 7289/20233. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 334/2016 dated 04.11.2016 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS: Subzi Mandi, Delhi including proceedings emanating therefrom.
4. It is stated in the petition that marriage between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 30.12.2012 according to Hindu Customs, Rites and Ceremonies at Delhi. Out of the wedlock, a male child was born to the parties on 12.12.2013, who is presently in custody of CRL.M.C. 7289/2023 Page 1 of 4 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 00:09:01 Respondent No. 2. On account of temperamental differences between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No. 2, the latter filed a complaint against the Petitioners herein in C.A.W. Cell, which culminated in the present FIR in which charge sheet has been filed and the trial is at the stage of framing of charges. There are other litigations in which the parties have remained embroiled, including an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). However, during the pendency of these litigations, parties have amicably settled and resolved all their disputes and the marriage has been dissolved by a Decree of Divorce by mutual consent. Parties have entered into a written settlement of agreement dated 19.04.2022 and copies of the Settlement Agreement as well as decree of divorce have been filed on record.
5. Issue notice.
6. Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.
7. Mr. Vishal Kumar, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No. 2.
8. Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No. 2 are present in Court and have been identified by their respective counsels and the Investigating Officer SI Ranjana, P.S. Subzi Mandi.
9. Learned counsel for Petitioner No.1 submits that a sum of Rs.50,000/- has already been given to Respondent No.2, a fact which is duly acknowledged by Respondent No.2. In view of the settlement between the parties, the Complainant has no objection to the quashing of the FIR and for the same reason, learned APP also has no objection.
10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and the learned APP. Power of the Court to quash criminal proceedings on the basis of a CRL.M.C. 7289/2023 Page 2 of 4 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 00:09:01 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 plenitude with no statutory limitation but must be exercised in accordance 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. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the aforestated position in Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another, (2013) 4 SCC 58 and highlighted that in case of matrimonial disputes, which are on the increase, Courts should not hesitate in quashing the criminal proceedings if the settlements are genuine as that would be a course of action in the interest of the parties.
11. In view of the settlement between the parties, terms of which have been complied with as well as to put a quietus to the litigation and in the interest of justice and to maintain peace and harmony between the parties, this Court finds no impediment in quashing the FIR and terminating the criminal proceedings. Continuation of the proceedings pursuant to the CRL.M.C. 7289/2023 Page 3 of 4 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 00:09:02 present FIR will be a futile exercise and an unnecessary burden on the State machinery. Accordingly, FIR No. 334/2016 dated 04.11.2016 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS: Subzi Mandi, Delhi, is hereby quashed including proceedings emanating therefrom. This would, however, be subject to the Petitioner No.1 investing a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the name of his minor son after a period of six months from today, in a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) under guardianship of Respondent No.2. Proof in support thereof shall be filed with the Registry within one week thereafter and in case of failure to comply with the said direction, petition will be listed before Court by the Registry. The FDR will be on an auto-renewal mode till the minor child attains majority after which he is free to take a decision on how to utilize the money invested along with the interest that would accrue thereon.
12. It is further made clear that in view of the judgment 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 will not impact the rights of the minor son, who will be entitled to enforce the rights available to him in law, if and when required.
13. Petition stands disposed of.
JYOTI SINGH, J OCTOBER 09, 2023/kks/shivam CRL.M.C. 7289/2023 Page 4 of 4 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 00:09:02