Bharat Vohra & Ors vs The State (Govt.) Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 3 October, 2023

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Bharat Vohra & Ors vs The State (Govt.) Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 3 October, 2023

Bench: Jyoti Singh

                                    $~25
                                    *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                    +           CRL.M.C. 5682/2022
                                                BHARAT VOHRA & ORS.                ..... Petitioners
                                                            Through: Mr. Rahul Rai and Mr. Vishal
                                                            Bhardwaj, Advocates.

                                                                                      versus

                                                THE STATE (GOVT.) OF NCT OF DELHI
                                                & ANR.                                    ..... Respondents
                                                              Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State
                                                              with SI Karishma Kamwat, PS Uttam Nagar.
                                                              Ms. Archana Sharma, Advocate with Respondent
                                                              No. 2 in person.

                                                CORAM:
                                                HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
                                                                                      ORDER

% 03.10.2023 CRL. M.A. 20971/2023 (for deletion, by Petitioner No. 1)

1. This is an application preferred on behalf of the Petitioner No. 1 seeking deletion of Petitioner No. 2 who has expired on 10.02.2023. Death Certificate is annexed with the application as Annexure-1.

2. Issue notice.

3. Counsels, as above, accept notice.

4. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Petitioner No. 2 is deleted from the array of parties.

5. Amended memo of parties filed along with the application is taken on record.

6. Application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 5682/2022 Page 1 of 7

This is a digitally signed order.

7. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.642/2019 dated 31.10.2019 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS: Uttam Nagar, South West Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom.

8. Issue notice.

9. Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.

10. Ms. Archana Sharma, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No. 2.

11. Marriage between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 was solemnized on 25.02.2016 in accordance with Hindu Customs, Rites and Ceremonies at Lavanya Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. Out of the said wedlock, a son was born to the parties on 06.02.2017 and he is currently in the custody of Respondent No. 2. On account of temperamental differences, Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 started living separately since 01.10.2018 and subsequent thereto, Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the Petitioners herein in C.A.W. Cell which culminated in the present FIR. Respondent No. 2 also filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). However, with the intervention of family members and assistance of learned mediators, on 06.09.2021, Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 have settled all their disputes and mutually decided to dissolve their marriage. The Settlement Agreement was drawn up between the parties on 06.09.2021 whereby it was agreed that both parties will withdraw all their litigations pending against each other and Petitioner No. 1 shall pay a total sum of Rs.7,10,000/- to Respondent No. 2 in full and final settlement. It was further agreed that Respondent No. 2 shall CRL.M.C. 5682/2022 Page 2 of 7 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 07/10/2023 at 21:00:07 make a fixed deposit in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in the name of the child and parties shall seek divorce by mutual consent. Acting on the settlement, parties applied for divorce and by a Decree dated 24.05.2022, marriage between the parties has been dissolved.

12. Petitioners and Respondent No.2 are present in Court who have been identified by their respective counsels as well as the Investigating Officer SI Karishma Kamwat, PS Uttam Nagar. It is stated by the parties that terms of settlement have been complied with inasmuch as a sum of Rs.7,15,000/- has been paid by Petitioner No. 1 to Respondent No. 2 and instead of a fixed deposit for Rs.1,50,000/-, Respondent No. 2 has invested a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of the child in an FDR. Copies of the Settlement Deed and Divorce Decree have been filed.

13. At this stage, counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that the said Respondent had to incur expenses towards sending a legal notice when Petitioner No. 1 had given a cheque which was dishonoured and therefore, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is payable to Respondent No. 2 on this score. Petitioner No. 1 undertakes to transfer a sum of Rs.15,000/- in the account of Respondent No. 2 within two weeks from today. The undertaking is taken on record.

14. In view of the above, Respondent No. 2 and the learned APP submit that they have no objection to the FIR being quashed against the Petitioners.

15. 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 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 CRL.M.C. 5682/2022 Page 3 of 7 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 07/10/2023 at 21:00:08 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 accord 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. It was held thus:-

"61. .... But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

CRL.M.C. 5682/2022 Page 4 of 7

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 07/10/2023 at 21:00:08

16. In Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another, (2013) 4 SCC 58, the Supreme Court deliberated on the scope and ambit of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the context of matrimonial disputes and observed that inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are wide and unfettered and that 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 Court is satisfied that parties have settled the same amicably and without pressure, for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power for quashing of FIR or subsequent proceedings. It would be relevant to quote few passages from the said judgment as follows:-

"14. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S. Joshi [(2003) 4 SCC 675 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 848] , this Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings where dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered into between the parties who are willing to settle their differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said decision is directly applicable to the case on hand and the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement arrived at.

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. The 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 CRL.M.C. 5682/2022 Page 5 of 7 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 07/10/2023 at 21:00:08 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. We also make it clear that exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. It is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of the Code enables the High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enables this Court to pass such orders."

17. As the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes and the marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 has been dissolved coupled with the fact that other terms of settlement also stand complied, this Court deems it fit to quash the FIR in order to put a quietus to the litigation for the peace and harmony between the parties. In view of the binding dictum of the Supreme Court and the settlement between the parties, FIR No.642/2019 dated 31.10.2019 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS: Uttam Nagar, Delhi, including proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. This would, however, be subject to Petitioner No. 1 paying a total sum of Rs.15,000/- to Respondent No. 2 within two weeks from today, as undertaken. Proof in support thereof shall be filed with the Registry within one week thereafter and in case of failure to comply with the undertaking, matter will be listed by the Registry in Court.

18. It is however 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 with respect to maintenance etc. will not impact the rights of the minor son and he will be entitled to enforce the rights available in CRL.M.C. 5682/2022 Page 6 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.

19. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with pending applications.

JYOTI SINGH, J OCTOBER 03, 2023/shivam CRL.M.C. 5682/2022 Page 7 of 7 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 07/10/2023 at 21:00:08

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders