Delhi High Court - Orders
Sh Gagan Deep Singh & Anr vs The State Govt. Of N.C.T Of Delhi & Anr on 25 May, 2022
Author: Anu Malhotra
Bench: Anu Malhotra
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 911/2022 & CRL.M.A. 7686/2022
SH GAGAN DEEP SINGH & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Pankaj Arya, Advocate.
Petitioners in-person.
versus
THE STATE GOVT. OF N.C.T OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. RS Kundu, ASC for State with
Mr. Mukul Dagar, Mr. Neetej Kumar,
Mr. Naresh Dagar & Ms. Pooja,
Advocates with SI Anuj Mor, PS
Tilak Nagar.
Mr. Dheeraj Jani, Advocate for R-2.
R-2 in-person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ORDER
% 25.05.2022 CRL.M.A. 7686/2022 (Ex.) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(CRL) 911/2022 The petitioners, vide the present petition seek the quashing of the FIR No.556/2018, PS Tilak Nagar, under Sections 498/406/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which however in view of the copy of the FIR placed on record and in view of the testimony of the Investigating Officer is directed to be treated as petition seeking the quashing of the FIR under Sections 498A/406/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
W.P.(CRL) 911/2022 Page 1 of 6Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:26.05.2022 14:55:39 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
The Investigating Officer of the case is present and has identified the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the petitioner no.1 Gagan Deep Singh and petitioner no.2 Aman Deep Singh present today in Court as being the two out of three accused arrayed in the FIR No.556/2018, PS Tilak Nagar, under Sections 498A/406/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and has also identified the respondent no.2 Ms. Gurpreet Kaur as being the complainant of the said FIR. The Investigating Officer has apprised that Mr. Jagjeet Singh, the third accused, the father of the petitioner No.1 has since expired. The copy of the death certificate of Mr. Jagjeet Singh indicating his demise on 03.05.2021 is placed on record by the petitioners.
The respondent no.2 in her deposition on oath in replies to specific Court queries has affirmed having signed the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioner no.1 dated 06.06.2019 arrived at the Counselling Cell of the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Tis Hazari as well as the dissolution of the marriage between her and the petitioner no.1 vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the HMA, 1955 in HMA Petition No.4033/2021 vide a decree dated 06.01.2022 of the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, West, Tis Hazari.
She has also affirmed the receipt of the total settled sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the petitioners and she has stated that there are now no claims of hers left against the petitioners. She has further testified to the effect that there is no child born of the wedlock between her and the petitioner no.1. She has further stated that in view of the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioners, she does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR No.556/2018, PS Tilak W.P.(CRL) 911/2022 Page 2 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:26.05.2022 14:55:39 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
Nagar, under Sections 498A/406/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor does she want them to be punished in relation thereto. She further affirms the demise of Mr. Jagjeet Singh, against whom the said FIR was also registered.
In reply to a specific Court query, the respondent no.2 has stated that she has studied till Standard XII and that she has made her statement voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter and has also understood the implications of the statement made by her.
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 deposition of the respondent no.2 and the settlement arrived at between the parties.
In view of the deposition of the respondent no.2, non-opposition on behalf of the State, identification of the petitioners and the respondent no.2 by the Investigating Officer of the case and the settlement that has been arrived at between the parties, in as much as, the FIR has apparently emanated from a matrimonial discord between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 which has since been resolved by the dissolution of their marriage vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent aforementioned and as there appears no reason to disbelieve the statement made by the respondent no.2 that she has arrived at a settlement with the petitioners voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter, for maintenance of peace and harmony between the parties it is considered appropriate to put a quietus to the litigation between the parties W.P.(CRL) 911/2022 Page 3 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:26.05.2022 14:55:39 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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 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 W.P.(CRL) 911/2022 Page 4 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:26.05.2022 14:55:39 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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 : -
"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 W.P.(CRL) 911/2022 Page 5 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:26.05.2022 14:55:39 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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, FIR No.556/2018, PS Tilak Nagar, under Sections 498A/406/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the petitioner no.1 Gagan Deep Singh and petitioner no.2 Aman Deep Singh are thus quashed.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
ANU MALHOTRA, J MAY 25, 2022/ha W.P.(CRL) 911/2022 Page 6 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:26.05.2022 14:55:39 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI 10 W.P.(CRL) 911/2022 SH GAGAN DEEP SINGH & ANR. versus THE STATE GOVT. OF N.C.T OF DELHI & ANR.
25.05.2022 CW-1 SI Anuj Mor, PS Tilak Nagar.
ON S.A. I am the Investigating Officer of FIR No.556/2018, PS Tilak Nagar, under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and with Sections 506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 having been invoked subsequently. There are two accused in this case.
I identify the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the petitioner no.1 Gagan Deep Singh and petitioner no.2 Aman Deep Singh present today in Court as being the two out of three accused arrayed in the aforesaid FIR and the third accused Mr. Jagjeet Singh had expired.
I also identify the respondent no.2 Ms. Gurpreet Kaur as being the complainant thereof.
RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J
25.05.2022
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:26.05.2022
14:55:39
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI 10 W.P.(CRL) 911/2022 SH GAGAN DEEP SINGH & ANR. versus THE STATE GOVT. OF N.C.T OF DELHI & ANR.
25.05.2022 CW-2 Ms. Gurpreet Kaur, D/o Sh. Tejender Singh, aged 33 years, r/o Plot No.232, Tilak Nagar, Delhi.
ON S.A. The settlement dated 06.06.2019 arrived at the Counselling Cell of the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Tis Hazari bears my signatures thereon and I have signed both these documents voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter.
In view of the said settlement arrived at between me and the petitioners, I have received a total settled sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the petitioners and that there are now no claims of mine left against 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.4033/2021 vide a decree dated 06.01.2022 of the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, West, Tis Hazari. There is no child born of the wedlock between me and the petitioner no.1.
In view of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioners, I do not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR No.556/2018, PS Tilak Nagar, under Sections 498A/406/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor do I want the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 i.e., the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:26.05.2022 14:55:39 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
petitioner no.1 Gagan Deep Singh and petitioner no.2 Aman Deep Singh to be punished in relation thereto.
The FIR was also registered against Mr. Jagjeet Singh who has since expired.
I have studied till Standard XII.
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
25.05.2022
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:26.05.2022
14:55:39
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.