Delhi High Court - Orders
Jitendar Kumar & Ors vs State Nct Of Dehi & Anr on 23 February, 2022
Author: Anu Malhotra
Bench: Anu Malhotra
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2110/2020
JITENDAR KUMAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Vinod Yadav, Advocate
versus
STATE NCT OF DEHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Manjeet Arya, APP for State with
SI Maneeta
Mr.Navneet Kumar, Advocate for R-2
with R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ORDER
% 23.02.2022 (Through Video Conferencing) The petitioner Nos. 1 to 3, namely, Jitendar Kumar, Mohit and Jagdish Raj seek the quashing of the FIR No. 557/2018, Police Station Neb Sarai, registered under Sections 498A/406/354/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, submitting to the effect that a settlement has since been arrived at between the parties to the petition and 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 13 B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 dated 30.9.2021 in HMA No. 527/2021 of the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Courts, South-Saket, New Delhi and that all claims of the respondent No.2 stand settled in terms of the mediation settlement arrived at on 5.10.2020 at the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi and the total settled sum of Rs.5,00,000/- has since been paid to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:25.02.2022 17:51:45 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
the respondent No.2 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 present has identified the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 as being the two accused put in column No.11 of the charge sheet and the petitioner No.3 arrayed in column No.12 of the charge sheet and has also identified the respondent No.2 as being the complainant of the FIR in question.
The respondent No.2 in her deposition on oath affirms the factum of a settlement dated 5.10.2020 arrived at between her and the petitioner No.1 through mediation at the Saket Mediation Centre and affirms the dissolution of her marriage with the respondent No.2 vide the decree of divorce through mutual consent aforementioned and also states that she has received the total settled sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the petitioners in terms of the mediation settlement dated 5.10.2020 and that thus she does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners No.1 to 3, namely, Jitendar Kumar, Mohit and Jagdish Raj seeking the quashing of the FIR bearing No. No. 557/2018, Police Station Neb Sarai, registered under Sections 498A/406/354/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor does she want them to be punished in relation thereto and states that she has so stated voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter.
The learned APP for the State in the circumstances does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner seeking the quashing of the FIR in question.
Taking into account the deposition of the respondent No.2, non- opposition on behalf of the State the identification of the parties to the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:25.02.2022 17:51:45 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
petition by the Investigating Officer and the factum that all claims of the respondent No.2 stand settled as testified by her, the FIR has apparently emanated due to a matrimonial discord which has since been resolved by the dissolution of marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13 B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 dated 30.9.2021 in HMA No. 527/2021 of the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Courts, South-Saket, New Delhi, and taking into account into the factum that there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the respondent No.2 that she has arrived at a settlement with the petitioner voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter she being studied till XIIth and working in PIZZA HUT it is considered appropriate for the maintenance of the peace and harmony between the parties to put a quietus to the litigation 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:25.02.2022 17:51:45 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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 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. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:25.02.2022 17:51:45 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
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), FIR bearing No. 557/2018, Police Station Neb Sarai, registered under Sections 498A/406/354/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3, namely, Jitendar Kumar, Mohit and Jagdish Raj as thus quashed.
The petition is disposed of.
ANU MALHOTRA, J FEBRUARY 23, 2022/SV Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:25.02.2022 17:51:45 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, NEW DELHI Item No.15 Crl.M.C. No. 2110/2020 JITENDAR KUMAR AND ORS V. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
CW-1 SI MANEETA POLICE STATION NEB SARAI ON S.A. I am the Investigating Officer of FIR bearing No. 557/2018, Police Station Neb Sarai, registered under Sections 498A/406/354/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. I identify the petitioners No. 1 to 3, namely, Jitendar Kumar, Mohit and Jagdish Raj present in the Court today through video conferencing as being the three accused arrayed in relation to the FIR in question. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were put in column No.11 and petitioner No.3 was put in column No.12. I also identify the respondent No.2 present through video conferencing as being the complainant thereof.
ANU MALHOTRA, J RO & AC 23.02.2022 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:25.02.2022 17:51:45 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, NEW DELHI Item No.15 Crl.M.C. No. 2110/2020 JITENDAR KUMAR AND ORS V. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
CW-2 MADHU RANI D/O SH. SUBHASH R/O H.No. 87/B-2, NANDI VATIKA, T-HUTS, TUGHLAKABAD RAILWAY COLONY, NEW DELHI, AGED 33 YEARS.
ON S.A. The mediation settlement dated 5.10.2020 arrived at the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts bears 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 petitioners I have received a total settled sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the petitioners and that there are now no 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 13 B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 dated 30.9.2021 in HMA No. 527/2021 of the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Courts, South-Saket, New Delhi. There is no child born of the wedlock between me and the petitioner No.1.
In terms of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioners, I do not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners No.1 to 3, namely, Jitendar Kumar, Mohit and Jagdish Raj seeking the quashing of the FIR bearing No. No. 557/2018, Police Station Neb Sarai, registered under Sections 498A/406/354/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor do I want them to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:25.02.2022 17:51:45 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
be punished in relation thereto.
I have made my statement voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter.
I have studied till Standard XIIth. I work in PIZZA HUT. I have understood the implications of the statement made by me which I have made voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter and I do not want to think again.
ANU MALHOTRA, J RO & AC 23.02.2022 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:25.02.2022 17:51:45 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.