Delhi High Court - Orders
Abhishek & Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 29 July, 2022
Author: Anu Malhotra
Bench: Anu Malhotra
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2206/2022
ABHISHEK & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Meenu Singh & Mr. Jitender
Singh, Advocates.
P-1 to 4 in-person.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State
with ASI Mukesh Kumar, PS Subzi
Mandi.
Mr. Parmesh Bali, Advocate for R-2
with R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ORDER
% 29.07.2022 Mr. Parmesh Bali (Enrl. No. D2888/2015) learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, submits that his Vakalalatnama would be filed during the course of a day.
The petitioners, vide the present petition seek the quashing of the FIR No.146/2019, Police Station Subzi Mandi, under Sections 323/354/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 submitting to the effect that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties to the petition vide a Counselling Cell settlement dated 26.10.2021 arrived at between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 during the course of proceedings in M.T. No.370/2018. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the proceeding under 13B(1) of the HMA, 1955 in HMA No. 1379/2021 between the respondent No.2 and the petitioner No.1 have since culminated Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.08.2022 13:24:36 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
and the certified copy of the order dated 13.04.2022 of the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Central District in HMA No. 1379/2021 has been submitted now on behalf of the petitioners which is taken on record.
The deputed Investigating Officer of the case is present and has identified the petitioner nos.1 to 4, i.e. petitioner no.1 Sh. Abhishek, petitioner No.2 Sh. Nagendra Pratap Singh, petitioner No.3 Smt. Poonam Singh and petitioner no.4 Sh. Vivek Singh present today in Court as being the four accused arrayed in FIR No.146/2019, Police Station Subzi Mandi, under Sections 323/354/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and has also identified the respondent No.2 Ms. Shweta 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 the Counselling Cell settlement document dated 26.10.2021 as well as her affidavit dated 06.05.2022 as her non-opposition to the prayer made by the petitioners by the present petition seeking the quashing of the FIR No.146/2019, Police Station Subzi Mandi, under Sections 323/354/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter.
She further states, in replies to specific Court queries, that, in terms of the settlement dated 26.10.2021 arrived at between her and the petitioner No.1, there are no monetary terms between the parties. She further states that the minor child aged 7 years born of the wedlock between her and the petitioner no.1 is in her custody. She further states that she does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.08.2022 13:24:36 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
No.146/2019, Police Station Subzi Mandi, under Sections 323/354/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor does she want them to be punished in relation thereto.
In reply to a specific Court query, the respondent no.2 has stated that she has done MA and she teaches 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, 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, and taking into account also the factum that as per the averments made in the settlement dated 26.10.2021, the present petition had to be filed before the institution of the petition under Section 13B(2) of the HMA, 1955, in as much as, the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 have also as per the said settlement agreed to seek a divorce through mutual consent and thereafter seek the quashing of the FIR under Sections 498A/406/377/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in relation to FIR No.215/2020, and the statement of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.08.2022 13:24:36 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
respondent No.2 that she seeks her mental peace, for maintenance of peace and harmony between the parties 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 : -
"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, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.08.2022 13:24:36 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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.]"
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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.08.2022 13:24:36 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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.146/2019, Police Station Subzi Mandi, under Sections 323/354/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners no. 1 to 4, i.e. petitioner no.1 Sh. Abhishek, petitioner No.2 Sh. Nagendra Pratap Singh, petitioner No.3 Smt. Poonam Singh and petitioner no.4 Sh. Vivek Singh are thus quashed.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
ANU MALHOTRA, J JULY 29, 2022 ha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.08.2022 13:24:36 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI ITEM NO. 9 CRL.M.C. 2206/2022 ABHISHEK & ORS. V. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 29.07.2022 CW-1 ASI Mukesh Kumar, PS Subzi Mandi.
ON S.A. I have been deputed to attend the proceedings qua FIR No.146/2019, Police Station Subzi Mandi, under Sections 323/354/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
I identify the petitioners no. 1 to 4, i.e. petitioner no.1 Sh. Abhishek, petitioner No.2 Sh. Nagendra Pratap Singh, petitioner No.3 Smt. Poonam Singh and petitioner no.4 Sh. Vivek Singh, present today in Court as being the four accused arrayed in the said FIR. I also identify the respondent No.2 Ms. Shweta, present in Court today, as being the complainant of the said FIR.
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
RO & AC 29.07.2022 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.08.2022 13:24:36 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI ITEM NO. 9 CRL.M.C. 2206/2022 ABHISHEK & ORS. V. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 29.07.2022 CW-2 Ms. Shweta, W/o Sh. Abhishek, D/o Sh. Ram Vilas Singh, Aged 33 Years R/o 26-B/9, Arya Samaj Mandir, Dev Nagar, New Delhi. ON S.A. The Counselling Cell settlement dated 26.10.2021 in M.T. No.370/2018 of the Family Court, Tis Hazari bears my signatures thereon which I have signed voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter.
Likewise, my affidavit dated 06.05.2022 filed by me as my non- opposition to the present petition bears my signatures thereon which I have signed voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter.
In view of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioners, the proceeding under 13B(1) of the HMA, 1955 in HMA No. 1379/2021 between me and the petitioner No.1 have since culminated. There are no monetary terms as per the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioners vide the settlement document dated 26.10.2021.
The minor child aged 7 years born of the wedlock between me and the petitioner no.1 is in my custody, in terms of the settlement.
For my mental peace, I do not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners Nos.1 to 4 seeking the quashing of the FIR No.146/2019, Police Station Subzi Mandi, under Sections 323/354/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor do I want the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 to be punished in Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.08.2022 13:24:36 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
relation thereto.
I have done MA and I teach.
I have made my statement after understanding its implications voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter and I do not need to think again.
ANU MALHOTRA, J RO & AC 29.07.2022 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:04.08.2022 13:24:36 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.