Delhi High Court - Orders
Yudhister & Ors vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 11 July, 2022
Author: Anu Malhotra
Bench: Anu Malhotra
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1905/2022
YUDHISTER & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms.Arti Singh, Advocate
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Izhar Ahmad, APP for State
With SI Rakam Singh Police Station
Karawal Nagar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ORDER
% 11.07.2022 The petitioners, vide the present petition seek the quashing of the FIR No.508/2018, PS Karawal Nagar under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, submitting to the effect that a settlement has been arrived at between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 at the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts dated 4.2.2019 pursuant to which 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.300/2020 vide a decree dated 22.12.2021 of the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, North District, Rohini, New Delhi and all claims of the respondent no.2 have since been settled by the payment of the total settled sum of Rs.3 Lakhs by the petitioners to the respondent no.2 and that no useful purpose would be served by the continuation of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:18.07.2022 16:28:32 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
proceedings in relation to the present FIR. The Investigating Officer of the case is present and has identified the the petitioner nos.1 to 4 i.e. petitioner no.1 Sh.Yudhister, petitioner no.2 Arun Mishra, petitioner no.3 Nirmala Mishra and petitioner no.4 Arjun Mishra present today in Court today as being the four accused arrayed in the said FIR and has also identified the respondent no.2 Ms.Pinki as being the complainant of the said FIR.
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 no.1 as aforementioned 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.300/2020 vide a decree dated 22.12.2021 of the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, North District, Rohini, New Delhi. She has also affirmed the receipt of the total settled sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the petitioners, in as much as, she has received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- previously and the balance sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has now been handed over to her by the petitioner no.1 during the course of the present proceedings vide a demand draft bearing No.834886 dated 28.4.2022 drawn on the Canara Bank in her favour and 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 namely petitioner no.1 Sh.Yudhister, petitioner no.2 Arun Mishra, petitioner no.3 Nirmala Mishra and petitioner no.4 Arjun Mishra seeking the quashing of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:18.07.2022 16:28:32 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
the FIR No.508/2018, PS Karawal Nagar under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act nor does she want the petitioners to be punished in relation thereto.
In reply to a specific Court query, the respondent no.2 has stated that she has done B.Ed. 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 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 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:-
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:18.07.2022 16:28:32 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
"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 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:18.07.2022 16:28:32 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnershipor such like transactions or the offences arising out ofmatrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or thefamily 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 criminalproceedings, 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:18.07.2022 16:28:32 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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...."
In view thereof, FIR No.508/2018, PS Karawal Nagar under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner nos.1 to 4 namely petitioner no.1 Sh.Yudhister, petitioner no.2 Arun Mishra, petitioner no.3 Nirmala Mishra and petitioner no.4 Arjun Mishra are thus quashed.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
ANU MALHOTRA, J JULY 11, 2022/SV Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:18.07.2022 16:28:32 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI 7 Crl.M.C. No.1905/2022 YUDHISTER AND ORS versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
11.07.2022 CW-1 SI Rakam Singh, PS Karawal Nagar ON S.A. I am the Investigating Officer of FIR No.508/2018, PS Karawal Nagar under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
I identify the petitioner nos.1 to 4 i.e. petitioner no.1 Sh.Yudhister, petitioner no.2 Arun Mishra, petitioner no.3 Nirmala Mishra and petitioner no.4 Arjun Mishra present today in Court today as being the four accused arrayed in the said FIR and I also identify the respondent no.2 Ms.Pinki as being the complainant of the said FIR.
RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J
11.07.2022
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:18.07.2022
16:28:32
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI 7 Crl.M.C. No.1905/2022 YUDHISTER AND ORS versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
11.07.2022 CW-2 MS.PINKI, D/O PREM NARAYAN AGED 29 YEARS R/O B BLOCK, GALI NO.11, H. No.225, KARAWAL NAGAR, DELHI.
ON S.A. The settlement agreement arrived at between me and the petitioners at the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts dated 4.2.2019 as well as the Memorandum of Understanding dated 7.5.2022 between me and the petitioners bear my signatures thereon which I have signed voluntarily of my own accord without any duress pressure or coercion from any quarter. In terms of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioner no.1 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.300/2020 vide a decree dated 22.12.2021 of the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, North District, Rohini, New Delhi. In view of the settlement I have received the total settled sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the petitioners, in as much as, I have received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- previously and the balance sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has now been handed over to me by the petitioner no.1 during the course of the present proceedings vide a demand draft bearing No.834886 dated 28.4.2022 drawn on the Canara Bank in my favour and that there are now no claims of mine left against the petitioners, I do not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners namely petitioner no.1 Sh.Yudhister, petitioner no.2 Arun Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:18.07.2022 16:28:32 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
Mishra, petitioner no.3 Nirmala Mishra and petitioner no.4 Arjun Mishra seeking the quashing of the FIR No.508/2018, PS Karawal Nagar under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act nor do I want the petitioners to be punished in relation thereto. There is no child born of the wedlock between me and the petitioner no.1.
I have done B.Ed..
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
11.07.2022.
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:18.07.2022
16:28:32
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.