Delhi High Court - Orders
Sh. Krishan Kumar Sharma & Ors vs State (Nct Of Delhi) And Anr on 25 August, 2022
Author: Anu Malhotra
Bench: Anu Malhotra
$~48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4022/2022 & CRL.M.A. 16644/2022
SH. KRISHAN KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Petitioner Nos.2 in-person with
counsel for the petitioners-
Appearance not given.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State
with W/SI Divya, PS South Campus.
R-2 in-person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ORDER
% 25.08.2022 CRL.M.A. 16644/2022 (Ex.) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 4022/2022The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 vide the present petition seek the quashing of the FIR No. 80/2019, Police Station South Campus, under Sections 498A/406/354/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 submitting to the effect that a settlement has since been arrived at between the petitioner nos.2 & 3 and the respondent no.2 vide a Memorandum of Understanding dated 16.08.2022 arrived at between the respondent No.2 and the petitioner Nos.2 CRL.M.C. 4022/2022 Page 1 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:26.08.2022 12:40:49 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
and 3 and that the petitioner No.1, i.e., the father-in-law of the respondent No.2, has since expired on 26.04.2021 and that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and the respondent No.2 are living together since 02.09.2021 and that no useful purpose would be served by the continuation of the proceedings qua the FIR in question.
The deputed Investigating Officer of the case is present and has identified the respondent no.2 Ms. Kajal who has joined the proceedings through video conferencing as being the complainant of the FIR in question and has also identified the petitioner No.2 Mr. Vinod Sharma as being one of the accused arrayed in the FIR and has also identified the proof of identity of the petitioner No.3 Smt. Meera Rani placed on record at page 52 of the present petition as being the other accused in the matter. She has further testified to the effect that the respondent no.2 and the petitioner no.2 are living together. She has also affirmed the factum of the demise of the petitioner No.1, the father-in-law of the respondent No.2, and has also stated in reply to a specific Court query that the allegations qua the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 354/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in the FIR were attributed against the petitioner No.1, Mr. Krishan Kumar Sharma who has since expired. Apparently, in as much as the petitioner No.1 has expired as per the death certificate placed on the record as issued by the NDMC indicating the demise of the petitioner No.1 on the date 26.04.2021, there is no impediment considering the petition seeking the quashing of the FIR which now apparently survives only against the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 qua the alleged CRL.M.C. 4022/2022 Page 2 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:26.08.2022 12:40:49 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with proceedings against the petitioner No.1 having since abated due to his demise qua the alleged offences punishable under Sections 354/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The respondent no.2 in her deposition on oath by the Court in replies to specific Court queries has affirmed having signed her affidavit dated 12.08.2022 in support of the averments made in the petition as well as the Memorandum of Understanding dated 16.08.2022 arrived at between her and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter and affirms the factum of living together with the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 with effect from 02.09.2021 without any problems and states that she wants to continue to live with her spouse, the petitioner No.2. She further states that there are no children born of the wedlock between her and the petitioner No.2 and states that she is a graduate having done BSc.
She further states that in view of the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioner No.2, she does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR nor does she want them to be punished in relation thereto.
On behalf of the State, there is no opposition to the prayer made by the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 seeking the quashing of the FIR in question in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the deposition made by the respondent no.2.
In view of the factum that the FIR against the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 has CRL.M.C. 4022/2022 Page 3 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:26.08.2022 12:40:49 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
apparently emanated from a matrimonial discord between the petitioner No.2 and the respondent No.2 which has since been resolved by the reconciliation between the petitioner no.2 and the respondent No.2 and that the parties are now living together, for maintenance of peace and harmony between the parties to the petition, 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 : -
CRL.M.C. 4022/2022 Page 4 of 7Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:26.08.2022 12:40:49 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
"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 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.]"CRL.M.C. 4022/2022 Page 5 of 7
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:26.08.2022 12:40:49 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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 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), CRL.M.C. 4022/2022 Page 6 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:26.08.2022 12:40:49 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
In view thereof, FIR No. 80/2019, Police Station South Campus, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are thus quashed with it having also been observed hereinabove that proceedings under Sections 354/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner No.1 stand abated.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
ANU MALHOTRA, J AUGUST 25, 2022 ha CRL.M.C. 4022/2022 Page 7 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:26.08.2022 12:40:49 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI ITEM No.48 CRL.M.C. 4022/2022 SH. KRISHAN KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.
25.08.2022 CW-1 W/SI Divya, PS South Campus. ON S.A. I have been deputed to attend the proceedings qua FIR No. 80/2019, Police Station South Campus, under Sections 498A/406/354/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The offences punishable under Sections 354/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were attributed against the petitioner No.1, Mr. Krishan Kumar Sharma, the father-in-law of the respondent No.2 and Mr. Krishan Kumar Sharma has since expired.
I identify the petitioner No.2 and the proof of identity of the petitioner No.3 placed on record at page 52 of the present petition i.e., petitioner No.2 Mr. Vinod Sharma and petitioner No.3 Smt. Meera Rani, as being the two surviving accused in the matter.
I also identify the respondent no.2 Ms. Kajal who has joined the proceedings through video conferencing as being the complainant of the FIR in question.
The petitioner No.2 Mr. Vinod Sharma and the respondent No.2 Ms. Kajal are living together.
RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J
25.08.2022
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:26.08.2022
12:40:49
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI ITEM No.48 CRL.M.C. 4022/2022 SH. KRISHAN KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.
25.08.2022 CW-2 Ms. Kajal, W/o Mr. Vinod Sharma, aged 26 years, R/o F-85, Moti Bagh 1, New Delhi.
ON S.A. My affidavit dated 12.08.2022 as well as the Memorandum of Understanding dated 16.08.2022 arrived at between me and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 bear my signatures thereon, which I have signed voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter.
The petitioner No.1, my father-in-law has since expired, the death certificate is placed on record as Annexure B indicating his demise on 26.04.2021.
I have been living with the petitioner No.2 since 02.09.2021 along with my mother-in-law also in the same house without any problems from my spouse the petitioner No.2 and from the petitioner No.3 my mother-in- law and I want to continue to live with the petitioner No.2. There are now no problems between me and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3.
There are no children of the wedlock between me and the petitioner No.2.
In view of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3, I do not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the No. 80/2019, Police Station South Campus, under Sections 498A/406/354/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor do I want them to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:26.08.2022 12:40:49 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
be punished in relation thereto.
I have done BSc.
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
25.08.2022
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:26.08.2022
12:40:49
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.