Delhi High Court - Orders
Rohtash Rohilla & Ors vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 26 September, 2022
Author: Anu Malhotra
Bench: Anu Malhotra
$~53
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4900/2022 & CRL.M.A. 19698/2022
ROHTASH ROHILLA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Garima Gupta, Advocate.
P-1 & 2 in-person.
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for
State with SI Sachin Yadav, PS Hari
Nagar.
Mr. Abhinav Sharma & Ms. Vishakha
Sharma, Advocates for R-2 with R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ORDER
% 26.09.2022 CRL.M.A. 19698/2022 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of accordingly.
CRL.M.C. 4900/2022The petitioner No.3 is not present and is stated to be bed ridden. The petitioner Nos.1 to 3 vide the present petition seek the quashing of the FIR No.461/2013, PS Hari Nagar under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 submitting to the effect that a settlement has since been arrived at between the parties to the petition vide a settlement document dated 27.07.2021, pursuant to which the entire settled sum of Rs.9 CRL.M.C. 4900/2022 Page 1 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:28.09.2022 18:51:36 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
Lakhs has since been paid to the respondent No.2 by the petitioners, of which the sum of Rs.6 Lakhs has been received by her previously and the balance sum of Rs.3 Lakhs has been received by her today during the course of the present proceedings vide a demand draft bearing No. 219903 dated 05.09.2022 drawn on the RBL Bank in her favour, and that thus all claims of the respondent No.2 have been settled against the petitioners, that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 has since been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the HMA, 1955 in HMA Petition No.102/2022 vide a decree dated 24.03.2022 of the Court of the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, West, Delhi, and that no useful purpose would be served by the continuation of the proceedings qua the FIR in question.
The Investigating Officer of the case is present and has identified the petitioner nos.1 and 2 i.e., petitioner No.1 Sh. Rohtash Rohilla and petitioner No.2 Sh. Raj Kumar, present today in Court, and the proof of identity of the petitioner No.3 i.e., Smt. Savitri Devi, placed at page 75 of the petition, as being the three accused persons arrayed in the FIR. The Investigating Officer of the case has also identified he respondent no.2 Ms. Janki Rohilla, present today in Court, as being the complainant of the said FIR.
The respondent no.2 in her deposition on oath in replies to specific Court queries affirms having signed her affidavit dated 06.08.2022 and the settlement document dated 27.07.2021 voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter. She also affirms the receipt of the total settled sum of Rs.9 Lakhs from the petitioners.
CRL.M.C. 4900/2022 Page 2 of 8Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:28.09.2022 18:51:36 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
She has also affirmed the factum of the dissolution of her marriage with the petitioner no.1 vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent aforementioned. Inter alia, she states that there is a son named Paranjay Rohilla aged 13 years born of the wedlock between her and the petitioner No.1 who is in her custody.
She further states that in view of the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioners, she does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 seeking the quashing of the FIR No.461/2013, PS Hari Nagar under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor does she want them to be punished in relation thereto.
She further states in reply to a specific Court query that she has studied till Standard XII and she works and has understood the implications of the statement made by her and that she has arrived at a settlement with the petitioners voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter and does not need to think again.
The learned APP for the State draws the attention of the Court to the terms of the settlement document dated 27.07.2021 on the record which vide clauses 1, 5, 7 and 9 thereof states to the effect:-
"1. The second party/husband has agreed to pay a total amount of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lac Only) to the first party wife as full and final settlement towards all claims of the first party/wife and Minor Master Pranjay, including all claims ie. istridhan articles, past, present and future maintenance and alimony. The aforesaid amount also includes the amount/claim, if any, pending to be paid in the execution petitions filed by the First Party, amount of pendete lite maintenance u/s 24 of HMA or any other amount of first party or Master Pranjay pending against the second party.CRL.M.C. 4900/2022 Page 3 of 8
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:28.09.2022 18:51:36 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
5. That it is resolved that from the abovesaid amount of Rs.6,00,000/ (Rupees Six Lacs Only) which the 1" party shall have received from the 2 party till 2 motion, the 1" party shall get prepared FDR for sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs Only) in the name of Master Paranjay for a period till he attains age of majority i.e. 18 years and the nominee in the said FDR shall be petitioner no.1 only. The 1" party can withdraw the interest of the aforesaid FDR for education, medication and welfare of the child. The I party shall supply the copy of the aforesaid FDR to 2" party.
7. That it is resolved that the aforesaid sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs Only) will be given in the form of FDR in the name of Master Paranjay for a period till he attains age of majority i.e. 18 years and the nominee in the said FDR shall be petitioner no. 1.
9. It is agreed by 1" party that neither she nor minor child namely Master Pranjay shall claim in moveable or immovable properties of the second party earned by himself or received from his ancestors in any manner."
It is essential to observe that despite the terms of the said settlement dated 27.07.2021 between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2, despite the decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the HMA in HMA Petition No.102/2022 vide a decree dated 24.03.2022 of the Court of the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, West, Delhi, and despite the FIR being directed to be now quashed against the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 in view of the factum that it has been 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, it is made expressly clear that the rights of the minor child Paranjay Rohilla born of the wedlock between the CRL.M.C. 4900/2022 Page 4 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:28.09.2022 18:51:36 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 qua maintenance or otherwise or any other inheritance, in view of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal 4031-4032/2019 arising out of SLP (C) Nos.32868- 32869/2018 titled as Ganesh Vs. Sudhirkumar Shrivastava & Ors. vide the verdict dated 22.04.2019 as adhered to and followed by this Court in Rakesh Jain & Ors. vs. State & Anr. in CRL.M.C. 2935/2019 dated 06.09.2019, shall remain protected in accordance with law.
However, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the identification of the parties by the Investigating Officer of the case, 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, 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, for maintenance of peace and harmony between the parties and for the well being of the minor child born of the wedlock between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2, 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 and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate CRL.M.C. 4900/2022 Page 5 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:28.09.2022 18:51:36 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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 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, CRL.M.C. 4900/2022 Page 6 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:28.09.2022 18:51:36 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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 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 CRL.M.C. 4900/2022 Page 7 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:28.09.2022 18:51:36 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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, as directed hereinabove, the FIR No.461/2013, PS Hari Nagar under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner nos.1 to 3 i.e., petitioner No.1 Sh. Rohtash Rohilla, petitioner No.2 Sh. Raj Kumar and petitioner No.3 Smt. Savitri Devi, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are thus quashed.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
ANU MALHOTRA, J SEPTEMBER 26, 2022 ha CRL.M.C. 4900/2022 Page 8 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:28.09.2022 18:51:36 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI 53 CRL.M.C. 4900/2022 ROHTASH ROHILLA & ORS. versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
26.09.2022 CW-1 SI Sachin Yadav, PS Hari Nagar. ON S.A. I am the Investigating Officer of FIR No.461/2013, PS Hari Nagar under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
I identify the petitioner nos.1 and 2 i.e., petitioner No.1 Sh. Rohtash Rohilla and petitioner No.2 Sh. Raj Kumar, present today in Court, and the proof of identity of the petitioner No.3 i.e., Smt. Savitri Devi, placed at page 75 of the petition, as being the three accused persons arrayed in the said FIR.
I also identify the respondent no.2 Ms. Janki Rohilla present today in Court as being the complainant of the said FIR.
RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J
26.09.2022
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:28.09.2022
18:51:36
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI 53 CRL.M.C. 4900/2022 ROHTASH ROHILLA & ORS. versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
26.09.2022 CW-2 Ms. Janki Rohilla, D/o Lt. Sh. Ghanshyam Rohilla, aged 39 years, R/o B-246, Hari Nagar Clock Tower, Delhi. ON S.A. My affidavit dated 06.08.2022 and the settlement document dated 27.07.2021 bear my signatures thereon which I have signed voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter.
In terms of the said settlement, a total sum of Rs.9 Lakhs had been agreed to be paid to me by the petitioners which entire amount has been received by me, of which the sum of Rs.6 Lakhs has been received by me previously and the balance sum of Rs.3 Lakhs has been received by me today during the course of the present proceedings vide a demand draft bearing No. 219903 dated 05.09.2022 drawn on the RBL Bank in my favour. There are no further 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.102/2022 vide a decree dated 24.03.2022 of the Court of the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, West, Delhi.
There is a son named Paranjay Rohilla aged 13 years born of the wedlock between me and the petitioner No.1 who is in my custody.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:28.09.2022 18:51:36 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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.461/2013, PS Hari Nagar under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor do I want the petitioner nos.1 to 3 i.e., petitioner No.1 Sh. Rohtash Rohilla, petitioner No.2 Sh. Raj Kumar and petitioner No.3 Smt. Savitri Devi to be punished in relation thereto.
I have studied till Standard XII and I work. 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
26.09.2022
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:28.09.2022
18:51:36
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.