Delhi High Court - Orders
Nikhil Suri And Ors vs State Of Delhi And Ors on 3 August, 2022
Author: Anu Malhotra
Bench: Anu Malhotra
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3346/2022 & CRL.M.A. 14069/2022
NIKHIL SURI AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Komal Chhibber, Advocate with
P-1 in-person and P-2 to 5 through
VC.
versus
STATE OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State for
R-1 & 2 with ASI Surinder Kumar,
PS Bindapur.
Mr. Yogesh Dagar, Advocate for R-3
with R-3 in-person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ORDER
% 03.08.2022 CRL.M.A. 14069/2022 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of accordingly.
CRL.M.C. 3346/2022The petitioners, vide the present petition seek the quashing of the FIR No.750/2019, Police Station Bindapur under Sections 498A/406/34 submitting to the effect that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties to the petition in view of a mediation settlement dated 08.12.2021 arrived at the Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini Courts, Delhi, and all claims of the respondent no.2 stand settled by the payment of Rs.18 Lakhs by the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:06.08.2022 17:17:22 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
petitioners to the respondent No.2 and that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 has also since been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the HMA, 1955 in HMA No.764/2022 vide a decree dated 17.05.2022 of the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Rohini North, Delhi and no useful purpose would be served by the continuation of the proceedings in relation to the FIR in question.
The Investigating Officer of the case is present and has identified the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 i.e. petitioner no.1 Nikhil Suri, present today in Court, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 i.e., petitioner No.2 Ved Praksah Suri and petitioner No.3 Puja Suri, present through video conferencing, as being the three accused arrayed in the FIR No.750/2019, Police Station Bindapur under Sections 498A/406/34 and has also identified the respondent No.3 Ms. Sheetanshu present today in Court as being the complainant thereof. The Investigating Officer submits to the effect that the charge sheet in the instant case was filed only against the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 with the petitioner Nos.4 and 5 having not been chargesheeted and not summoned by the learned Trial Court.
The respondent no.3 in her deposition on oath in replies to specific Court queries affirms having signed her affidavit annexed to the petition dated 11.06.2022 as her non-opposition to the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR No.750/2019, Police Station Bindapur under Sections 498A/406/34 as well as the mediation settlement dated 08.12.2021 arrived at the Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini Courts, Delhi, qua which she states that she has signed both these documents voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:06.08.2022 17:17:22 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
She also affirms the factum of dissolution of her marriage with the petitioner no.1 vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent aforementioned. The respondent no.2 also affirms the factum of receipt of the total settled sum of Rs.18 Lakhs from the petitioners towards all her claims, out of which a sum of Rs. 8 Lakhs had been received by her previously and the balance sum of Rs.10 Lakhs has been received by her during the course of the present proceedings vide a banker‟s cheque bearing No.920578 dated 11.07.2022 drawn on the Kotak Mahindra Bank in her favour. She further states that in terms of the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioner no.1, both the petitioner No.1 and she would not be interfering in each other‟s life in future and that the minor child born of the wedlock between her and the petitioner No.1 is in her custody with as per averments made in clause 5 of the mediation settlement therein, there being no visitation rights to the petitioner No.1.
She further states that she has done her PhD and works as a Senior Lead Analyst. She further states that in terms of the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioner no.1 there are now no claims of hers left against the petitioners, and she thus, does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR No.750/2019, Police Station Bindapur under Sections 498A/406/34 nor does she want them to be punished in relation thereto.
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 settlement arrived at between the parties and the deposition of the respondent no.3.
In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and as there Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:06.08.2022 17:17:22 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
appears no reason to disbelieve the statement made by the respondent no.3 that she has arrived at a settlement with the petitioners voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter she being well educated having done her PhD, 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 aforementioned, 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 and lay 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:06.08.2022 17:17:22 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:06.08.2022 17:17:22 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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 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.750/2019, Police Station Bindapur under Sections 498A/406/34 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are thus quashed.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:06.08.2022 17:17:22 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
It is made expressly cleared however that nothing stated in the mediation settlement dated 08.12.2021 shall amount to any embargo on the rights of the minor child qua maintenance or otherwise, 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, as well as the aspect of custody and visitation of the child which are variable rights in terms of law, dependent on the „best interest and welfare of the child.‟ The petition is disposed of accordingly.
ANU MALHOTRA, J AUGUST 3, 2022 ha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:06.08.2022 17:17:22 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI ITEM No.2 CRL.M.C. 3346/2022 NIKHIL SURI AND ORS versus STATE OF DELHI AND ORS. 03.08.2022 CW-1 ASI Surinder Kumar, PS Bindapur. ON S.A. I am the Investigating Officer of FIR No.750/2019, Police Station Bindapur under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The charge sheet in the instant case has been filed against Nikhil Suri, Ved Praksah Suri and Puja Suri only. The accused named Naveen Suri and Arshpreet Kaur Simi, who are arrayed as petitioner Nos.4 and 5 to the present petition, were not summoned by the learned Trial Court.
I identify the petitioner No. 1 Nikhil Suri present today in Court. I also identify the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 i.e., petitioner No.2 Ved Praksah Suri and petitioner No.3 Puja Suri, present through video conferencing. I am unable to identify the petitioner Nos.4 and 5 i.e., Naveen Suri and Arshpreet Kaur Simi.
I also identify the respondent No.3 Ms. Sheetanshu present today in Court as being the complainant thereof.
RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J
03.08.2022
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:06.08.2022
17:17:22
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI ITEM No.2 CRL.M.C. 3346/2022 NIKHIL SURI AND ORS versus STATE OF DELHI AND ORS. 03.08.2022 CW-2 Ms. Sheetanshu, D/o Sh. Komal Grover, aged 34 years, R/o R- 114A, Vani Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. ON S.A. My affidavit annexed to the petition dated 11.06.2022 in support of the averments made in the petition as my non-opposition to the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR No.750/2019, Police Station Bindapur under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as the mediation settlement dated 08.12.2021 arrived at the Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini Courts, Delhi 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 settlement arrived at between me and the petitioners, a total sum of Rs.18 Lakhs had been agreed to be paid to me towards all my claims, of which a sum of Rs.8 Lakhs has been received by me previously during the course of the proceedings under Section 13B(1) and 13B(2) of the HMA and the balance sum of Rs. 10 Lakh has now been handed over to me vide a banker‟s cheque bearing No.920578 dated 11.07.2022 drawn on the Kotak Mahindra Bank in my favour. There are now no claims of mine left against the petitioners.
The petitioner No.1 and I have undertaken not to interfere in each other‟s life in future. As per clause 5 of the settlement document, the custody of the minor child born of the wedlock between me and the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:06.08.2022 17:17:22 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
petitioner No.1 is with me with no visitation rights to the husband.
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 No.764/2022 vide a decree dated 17.05.2022 of the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Rohini North, Delhi. In view of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioners, for mental peace and as my child is growing, for his welfare also, I do not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR No.750/2019, Police Station Bindapur under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor do I want them to be punished in relation thereto.
I have done my PhD and I work as a Senior Lead Analyst. 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
03.08.2022
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:06.08.2022
17:17:22
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.