Delhi High Court - Orders
Mr. Nabi Hasan & Ors vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 5 April, 2022
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 830/2022
MR. NABI HASAN & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Hamid Ali and Mr. Prashant
Yadav, Advocates
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, APP for State
with SI Ankur Kardam, P.S. Punjabi
Bagh.
Respondent no.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
ORDER
% 05.04.2022
1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter "Cr.P.C.") has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of FIR bearing No. 1032/2015 registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh for offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/323/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter "IPC") and consequent proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that fresh settlement in terms of order dated 22nd February 2022 has been filed on 30th March 2022 but the same is not on record. He has supplied a hard copy of the settlement, which is taken on record.
3. All the petitioners are present before this Court and have been Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV CRL.M.C. 830/2022 Page 1 of 4 Signing Date:06.04.2022 17:45:54 identified by their counsel Mr. Hamid Ali and Investigating Officer SI Ankur Kardam from Police Station Punjabi Bagh. Respondent No.2 is also present in the Court and has been identified by the Investigating Officer.
4. On the query made by this Court, respondent no.2 has categorically stated that she has entered into compromise on her own free will and without any pressure. It is also stated by respondent No.2 that the entire dispute has been amicably settled between the parties.
5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 got married to each other on 29th April 2012 at Delhi according to Muslim rites and ceremonies but due to some temperamental differences between them, they started living separately since 17th February 2013. There is no child born out of their wedlock. Despite several efforts of reconciliation, both the parties could not settle the differences. Respondent no.2 lodged the aforesaid FIR against all the petitioners on 1st October 2015.
6. With the intervention of family members and relatives, both the parties entered into settlement vide Khula and Mubarat dated 10th October 2019 which is annexed as Annexure C to the petition. The terms and conditions of the settlement have been mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 4 of the same. In terms of the settlement, Nikah between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 stands terminated.
7. It is submitted that respondent No.2 has settled all her claims in respect of her dowry articles, stridhan, marriage expenses, jewellery, gift items and claims of past, present and future maintenance and permanent alimony with petitioner No.1 and other family members.
8. It is accordingly prayed that the instant FIR may be quashed on the basis of Settlement dated 30th March 2022 and as per the Judgment of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV CRL.M.C. 830/2022 Page 2 of 4 Signing Date:06.04.2022 17:45:54 Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303.
9. Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, learned APP for the State submitted that there is no opposition to the prayer made by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR in question in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
10. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. The instant criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on the society especially when there is a settlement/compromise between victim and accused. In such cases, it is settled law that High Court is also required to consider the conduct and antecedents of the accused in order to ascertain that the settlement has been entered into by her own free will and has not been imposed upon her by the petitioner or any person related to him. In the present case, the complainant is present in Court and has categorically stated that she has entered into compromise and settled the entire disputes amicably with petitioner no.1 and his family members by her own free will without any pressure or coercion. There is also no allegation from respondent no.2 that the conduct and antecedents of petitioners have been bad towards her after the compromise. As per the settlement, the respondent No.2 has received the entire settled amount.
12. In the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if for purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of the power of quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
13. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV CRL.M.C. 830/2022 Page 3 of 4 Signing Date:06.04.2022 17:45:54 Ors. vs. Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr. (2013) 4 SCC 58, has held that criminal proceedings on FIR or complaint can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in appropriate cases in order to meet ends of justice. Even in non- compoundable offences pertaining to the matrimonial disputes, if Court is satisfied that parties have settled the disputes amicably and without any pressure, then for the purpose of securing ends of justice, FIRs or complaints or subsequent criminal proceedings in respect of offences can be quashed.
14. In the instant case, as stated above, the parties have reached on the compromise and amicably settled the entire disputes without any pressure. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, FIR bearing No. 1032/2015 registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh for offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/323/509/34 of the IPC and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
15. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J APRIL 5, 2022 Aj/ct Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV CRL.M.C. 830/2022 Page 4 of 4 Signing Date:06.04.2022 17:45:54