Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Pawan Sharma & Anr vs State & Anr on 2 November, 2020

Author: Anu Malhotra

Bench: Anu Malhotra

                      $~13
                      *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                      +      CRL.M.C. 323/2020

                             PAWAN SHARMA & ANR.                                ..... Petitioner

                                                Through:     Petitioners in person with Mr._____,
                                                             Advocate (Appearance not given.)

                                                versus

                             STATE & ANR.                                       ..... Respondent

                                                Through:     Mr. Kamal Kr. Ghei, APP for State
                                                             with SI Vedpal Singh, PS Bhajanpura.
                                                             R-2 in person.

                             CORAM:
                             HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
                                     ORDER

% 02.11.2020 In terms of the order dated 22.01.2020, the petitioner no.1 has placed on record the affidavit dated 04.03.2020 submitting to the effect that the two minor children namely Riya and Krishna are in his custody in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties dated 06.12.2019 at the Counselling Cell, KKD Courts, New Delhi and that he would be bound by the said terms and if he fails to do so, they will be free to recourse to the provisions of law to seek appropriate relief in relation to the aspect of maintenance, education and upbringing whatsoever.

The Investigating Officer of the case is present today in the Court and has identified the petitioner no. 1 Pawan Sharma and the petitioner no.2 CRL.M.C. 323/2020 Page 1 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:02.11.2020 18:09:01 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

Jageshri as being the two accused persons arrayed in the FIR No.615/2019, PS Bhajanpura under Sections 498A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and he has also identified the respondent no.2 Ms.Shikha Sharma as being the complainant of the said FIR.

The respondent no.2 in her deposition on oath by the Court has affirmed the factum of the settlement that has been arrived at between her and the petitioners vide the Counselling Cell agreement dated 06.12.2019 qua which she has stated that she has signed the same voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter. She has further stated that in terms of the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioners, the marriage between her 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 Petition No.03/2020 vide a decree dated 07.01.2020 of the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, North-East, KKD Courts, Delhi, certified copy of which decree is on the record as Ex.CW2/B and has further testified to the effect that in terms of the said settlement arrived at between her and the petitioners, the total sum of Rs.5,50,000/- was agreed to be paid to her by the petitioners out of which a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- had been received by her previously and the balance sum of Rs.1,50,000/- has now been handed over to her vide a demand draft bearing No.926921 dated 27.10.2020 drawn on the Syndicate Bank in her favour, copy of which demand draft is on the record as Ex.CW2/C and has further stated that there are now no claims of hers left against the petitioners but she seeks that the terms in relation to the two minor children born of the wedlock between her and the petitioner no.1, namely Riya and Krishna CRL.M.C. 323/2020 Page 2 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:02.11.2020 18:09:01 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

which reads to the effect:-

"There are two children namely Riya and Krishna from this wedlock, who are living with the respondent father/husband. It is agreed among the parties that the custody will be with the respondent/ father. The petitioner will have visitation rights twice in a month, every first Sunday and Last Sunday at respondent. It is further agreed that the meeting time of petitioner and the children shall be from 10.00 am to 4.00 pm as per convenience of both the parties.", are adhered to.
The petitioner no.1 in his deposition on oath in reply to specific Court queries has affirmed having signed the settlement document Ex.CW2/A voluntarily and undertake to adhere to the terms of the said settlement in relation to the visitation rights to the respondent no.2 qua the two minor children.
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 as much as, the FIR has apparently been emanated from a matrimonial discord which has since been resolved by the dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent as testified by the respondent no.2 herself inclusive of the aspect of the custody and visitation rights qua the minor children with the petitioner no.1 undertake to adhere to and the settlement terms qua the visitation rights qua the minor children with the respondent no.2, and to which the petitioner no.1 shall remain bound by.
CRL.M.C. 323/2020 Page 3 of 7
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:02.11.2020 18:09:01 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
In view of the deposition of the respondent no.2, settlement arrived at between the parties and the non-opposition on behalf of the State, for maintenance of peace and harmony between the parties 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 andlay 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 CRL.M.C. 323/2020 Page 4 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:02.11.2020 18:09:01 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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 the effect:-

CRL.M.C. 323/2020 Page 5 of 7
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:02.11.2020 18:09:01 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
"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, the FIR No.615/2019, PS Bhajanpura under Sections 498A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners are thus, quashed.

CRL.M.C. 323/2020 Page 6 of 7

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:02.11.2020 18:09:01 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

The petitioner no.1 shall remain bound by his statement made today before this Court as well as the terms of the settlement qua the visitation rights of the two minor children with the respondent no.2.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

ANU MALHOTRA, J NOVEMBER 2, 2020 'neha chopra' CRL.M.C. 323/2020 Page 7 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:02.11.2020 18:09:01 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI 13 CRL.M.C. 323/2020 PAWAN SHARMA & ANR. VERSUS STATE & ANR.

02.11.2020 CW-1 SI Vedpal Singh, PS Bhajanpura.

ON S.A. I am the Investigating Officer of the FIR No.615/2019, PS Bhajanpura under Sections 498A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

I identify the petitioner no. 1 Pawan Sharma present today in Court and the proof of identity of the petitioner no.2 Jageshri placed at page 39 of the petition (who is stated to be within the Court complex) as being the two accused persons arrayed in the FIR No.615/2019, PS Bhajanpura under Sections 498A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and I also identify the respondent no.2 Ms.Shikha Sharma as being the complainant thereof. 

                      RO & AC                                             ANU MALHOTRA, J
                      02.11.2020




Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:02.11.2020
18:09:01
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI 13 CRL.M.C. 323/2020 PAWAN SHARMA & ANR. VERSUS STATE & ANR.

02.11.2020 CW-2 Ms.Shikha Sharma, d/o Sh.Om Prakash Sharma, age 33 years,, r/o H.No.A-109, Gali No.10, Bhajanpura, New Delhi.

ON S.A. The counselling cell agreement dated 06.12.2019 bears my signatures on each page thereof as visible at point A on Ex.CW2/A which I have signed voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter.

In terms of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioners, 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 Petition No.03/2020 vide a decree dated 07.01.2020 of the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, North-East, KKD Courts, Delhi, certified copy of which decree is on the record as Ex.CW2/B. In terms of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioners, the total sum of Rs.5,50,000/- was agreed to be paid to me by the petitioners out of which a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- had been received by me previously and the balance sum of Rs.1,50,000/- has now been handed over to me vide a demand draft bearing No.926921 dated 27.10.2020 drawn on the Syndicate Bank in my favour, copy of which demand draft is on the record as Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:02.11.2020 18:09:01 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.

Ex.CW2/C. There are now no claims of mine left against the petitioners.

In terms of the said settlement agreement arrived at between me and the petitioners, the two minor children born of the wedlock between me and the petitioner no.1, namely Riya and Krishna are in the custody of the petitioner no.1 and I seek that the custody and visitation rights in terms of the said settlement agreement, which reads to the effect:-

"There are two children namely Riya and Krishna from this wedlock, who are living with the respondent father/husband. It is agreed among the parties that the custody will be with the respondent/ father. The petitioner will have visitation rights twice in a month, every first Sunday and Last Sunday at respondent. It is further agreed that the meeting time of petitioner and the children shall be from 10.00 am to 4.00 pm as per convenience of both the parties.", are adhered to.
I have no opposition to the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR No.615/2019, PS Bhajanpura under Sections 498A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor do I want the petitioners to be punished in relation thereto.
I am a graduate.
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
                      02.11.2020

Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:02.11.2020
18:09:01
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI 13 CRL.M.C. 323/2020 PAWAN SHARMA & ANR. VERSUS STATE & ANR.
02.11.2020 CW-3 Mr.Pawan Sharma, s/o Late Sh.Ram Avtar Sharma, age 38 years, r/o C-13, Gali No.1, Jagatpuri, Ext. New Delhi.
ON S.A. I have signed the settlement agreement dated 06.12.2019 arrived at between me and the respondent no.2 at the Counselling Cell, Family Court, KKD Courts, Delhi voluntarily of my own accord on each page thereof as visible at point B on Ex.CW2/A. I undertake to adhere to the Clause of the settlement agreement, which reads to the effect:-
"There are two children namely Riya and Krishna from this wedlock, who are living with the respondent father/husband. It is agreed among the parties that the custody will be with the respondent/ father. The petitioner will have visitation rights twice in a month, every first Sunday and Last Sunday at respondent. It is further agreed that the meeting time of petitioner and the children shall be from 10.00 am to 4.00 pm as per convenience of both the parties.", in relation to the visitation rights of the respondent no.2 qua the two minor children.
I have studied till Standard XII.
I am a conductor in the DTC on contract basis. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:02.11.2020 18:09:01 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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
                      02.11.2020




Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:02.11.2020
18:09:01
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.