Delhi High Court - Orders
Sh Varun Arora & Ors vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 4 March, 2021
Author: Anu Malhotra
Bench: Anu Malhotra
$~111
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 726/2021 and Crl.M.A. No. 3570/2021
SH VARUN ARORA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Paritosh Yadav, Advocate with
petitioners in person.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State
with WSI Rima Raj PS Rani Bagh
Mr.Hemant Yadav, Adv for R-2 with
R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ORDER
% 04.03.2021 (Through video conferencing) Vide the present petition, the petitioners No.1 to 7, namely, Varun Arora, Usha Rani, Simmi @ Simmi Arora, Vinod Kumar Arora, Anirban Guha, Ruby Guha and Saroj, seek the quashing of the FIR No. 334/2018 Police Station Rani Bagh under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 submitting inter alia to the effect that a settlement has since been arrived at between the parties vide a Memorandum of Understanding dated 20.4.2019 pursuant to which the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 has also been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13 B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide decree dated 8.1.2020 in HMA No. 2767/2019 of the Court of the Principal Judge Family Courts, North-West Rohini Court Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:10.03.2021 19:38:54 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
and that all claims of the respondent No.2 qua the petitioners stand settled with she having received the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the petitioners and that no useful purpose would be served by the continuation of the proceedings qua the said FIR.
The Investigating Officer of the case is present and has identified the petitioners No.1 to 7 present in Court today through Video Conferencing as being the seven accused arrayed in the FIR No. 334/2018 Police Station Rani Bagh under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the respondent No.2 present in the Court today through Video Conferencing as being the complainant thereof.
The respondent No.2 in her deposition on oath in replies to specific Court queries has affirmed the factum of the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioner vide a Memorandum of Understanding dated 20.4.2019 and the dissolution of marriage between her and the petitioner No.1 vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13 B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide decree dated 8.1.2020 in HMA 2767/2019 of the Court of the Principal Judge Family Courts, North-West, Rohini Courts, and has also testified to the receipt of the total settled sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the petitioners and has stated that the balance which was due to her has since been paid to her vide a Demand Draft bearing No.126407 dated 3.3.2021, drawn on State Bank of India, Faridabad Branch in her favour and that are now no claims of hers left against the petitioners and that there is no child born of the wedlock between her and the petitioner No.1 and that she does not Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:10.03.2021 19:38:54 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
oppose the prayer made by the petitioners No.1 to 7, namely, Varun Arora, Usha Rani, Simmi @ Simmi Arora, Vinod Kumar Arora, Anirban Guha, Ruby Guha and Saroj present, seeking the quashing of the FIR No. 334/2018 Police Station Rani Bagh under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor does she want the petitioners to be punished in relation thereto. She further states that she has so stated voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter.
Respondent No.2 further states that she has done her MBA and that she is working with an MNC and that she has understood the implications of the statement made by her and does not need to think again and that she has made her statement voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter.
On behalf of the State, 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 and the deposition made by the respondent No.2.
Taking into account the non-opposition on behalf of the State, in view of the deposition of the respondent no.2 and the identification of the parties by the Investigating Officer, there being 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, pressure or coercion from any quarter she being apparently educated enough, having done her MBA and working with an MNC, in as much as, the FIR has apparently emanated due to a matrimonial discord which has since been resolved Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:10.03.2021 19:38:54 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13 B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide a decree of divorce as aforementioned, it is considered appropriate to put a quietus to the litigation between the parties qua the FIR in question and for the maintenance of peace and harmony between them in view of the observations in the verdict 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, 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:10.03.2021 19:38:54 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:10.03.2021 19:38:54 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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), FIR No. 334/2018 Police Station Rani Bagh under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are thus quashed against the petitioners.
The petition is disposed of.
ANU MALHOTRA, J MARCH 4, 2021/SV Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:10.03.2021 19:38:54 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI NEW DELHI. ITEM NO.111 CRL.M.C. No.726/2021 VARUN ARORA & ORS. V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
CW-1 W/SI RIMA RAJ PS RANI BAGH ON S.A. I am the Investigating Officer of the case FIR No. 334/2018 Police Station Rani Bagh under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. I identify the petitioners No.1 to 7, namely, Varun Arora, Usha Rani, Simmi @ Simmi Arora, Vinod Kumar Arora, Anirban Guha, Ruby Guha and Saroj present in the Court today through Video Conferencing as being the seven accused arrayed in FIR No. 334/2018 Police Station Rani Bagh under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Apart from these seven accused there is no other person arrayed as accused in relation to the FIR in question. I identify the respondent No.2 Anu Chhabra, present in the Court today through VC as being the complainant of the said FIR.
ANU MALHOTRA, J RO&AC 04.03.2021 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:10.03.2021 19:38:54 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI NEW DELHI. ITEM NO.111 CRL.M.C. No.726/2021 VARUN ARORA & ORS. V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
CW-2 MS. ANU CHHABRA D/O SH.HARI KISHAN CHHABRA R/O WZ-3055, GROUND FLOOR, MAHINDRA PARK RANI BAGH, DELHI. AGED 35 YEARS ON S.A. In view of the Memorandum of Understanding executed between me and the petitioners dated 20.4.2019 and in view of the dissolution of marriage between me and the petitioner No.1 vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13 B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide decree dated 8.1.2020 in HMA 2767/2019 of the Court of the Principal Judge Family Courts, North- West, Rohini Courts, and all my claims having been settled qua the petitioners with me having received the entire settled sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the petitioners in as much as the balance of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- has been received by me already vide a Demand Draft bearing No.126407 dated 3.3.2021, drawn on State Bank of India, Faridabad Branch in my favour, I do not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners No.1 to 7, namely, Varun Arora, Usha Rani, Simmi @ Simmi Arora, Vinod Kumar Arora, Anirban Guha, Ruby Guha and Saroj present, seeking the quashing of the FIR No. 334/2018 Police Station Rani Bagh under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor do I want the petitioners to be punished in relation thereto. I have so stated voluntarily of my own Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:10.03.2021 19:38:54 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter. There is no child born of the wedlock between me and the petitioner No.1.
I have done my MBA and I work with an MNC. I have understood the implications of the statement made by me and do not need to think again. I have made my statement voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter.
ANU MALHOTRA, J RO&AC 04.03.2021 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:10.03.2021 19:38:54 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.