* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 5163/2015
Date of Decision : March 04th, 2016
CHIRANJEEV SINGH LAMBA & ORS
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.B. Sharma, Advocate
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State with ASI
Shyam Sunder, Police Station
Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi.
Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate for
respondent No. 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Chiranjeev Singh Lamba, Smt. Charanjeet Kaur, Palvinder Singh Lamba and Gurmeet Kaur for quashing of FIR No.317/2012 dated 13.10.2012, under Sections 498A/323/34 IPC registered at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar on the basis of the compromise deed arrived at between petitioner nos.1 to 3 and Crl.M.C. 5163/2015 Page 1 of 12 respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Amanpreet Kaur on 22.09.2014.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by ASI Shyam Sunder.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is that on 28.04.2012 at about 2 pm, the petitioner no.1 came to the room of complainant and abused her. He even snatched the daughter of the complainant-Mannat from her and the complainant was also thrown by petitioner no.1 from the room and he locked the room. The complainant was also asked by the petitioner no.1 to leave the matrimonial house. The petitioner no.1 caught hold of the hair of the complainant and hit her with the wall of the room and as a result, the head of the complainant struck against the wall and she received injuries on her head. The, the petitioner no.4 caught hold of the hands of the complainant and petitioner no.1 gave her beatings with legs and blows. The petitioner no.2 was also present there and started abusing and curing the complainant and also gave her beatings. Ultimately, the complainant became unconscious. The complainant after gaining conscious called up the police who took her Crl.M.C. 5163/2015 Page 2 of 12 to the hospital.
Thereafter, the complainant/respondent no.2 lodged the FIR in question against the petitioners. Later on, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement and compromised all their disputes.
4. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the compromise deed, the petitioners shall let the respondent no.2 live peacefully in the property bearing No. 11/4, first floor, Indra Vikas Colony, Near Nirankari Colony, Delhi without any fear, cruelty, domestic violence etc. and none of the members of the petitioners shall cause any hindrance to the free movement/ living of the respondent no.2 in the said property and/or any other property purchased in future by petitioners. The petitioner nos. 1 to 3 and the respondent no.2 shall have equal share i.e. 1/3rd share in the said property till the lifetime of petitioner no.2 and thereafter, the petitioner nos. 1 & 3 and the respondent no.2 shall have equal right i.e. 1/2nd each in the said property. It is also agreed that out of the two shops at 862, Hazi Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, one shop will be of petitioner no.3 and the other of petitioner no.1 and the respondent Crl.M.C. 5163/2015 Page 3 of 12 no.2 and they are free to use/deal with the said shop independently without any hindrance etc. by petitioner no.3 and petitioner no.2 in case of sale of the said shops and the sale consideration shall be equally divided between petitioner no.3 and petitioner no.1. The respondent no.2 shall have equal share/right in the property acquired by petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.1 shall have no individual right to dispose off the property so acquired of his own and/or without the permission of respondent no.2. The near and dear ones of respondent no.2 shall have the right to visit the respondent no.2 at any time at the place of her residence i.e. property bearing No. 11/4, first floor, Indra Vikas Colony, Near Nirankari Colony, Delhi and the petitioners shall cause no hindrance. The petitioner no.1 shall pay house hold expenses of Rs. 8000/- pm, school fees of his daughter of Rs. 6000/- and other expense of the child of Rs. 4000/- pm with increase of 20% per year. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 31.10.2015 supporting this petition. In the affidavit, the respondent no.2 has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with Crl.M.C. 5163/2015 Page 4 of 12 petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of the respondent No.2 has been recorded in this regard in which she stated that she has entered into a compromise with the petitioners and has settled all the disputes with them. She further stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
"61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings."
6. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC
466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are as under:-
"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the Crl.M.C. 5163/2015 Page 5 of 12 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:
29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.Crl.M.C. 5163/2015 Page 6 of 12
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly 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.
7. The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The respondent no.2 agrees to the quashing of the FIR in question without any threat or coercion or undue influence and has stated that the matter has been settled out of her own free will. As the matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be an extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal proceedings between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
8. The incorporation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provision of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured; where the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to Crl.M.C. 5163/2015 Page 7 of 12 avoid the causing of harassment to any person by using the provision of Cr.P.C. or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery of justice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent the express provisions of law.
9. It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case of Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009 has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.
10. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not affect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. Crl.M.C. 5163/2015 Page 8 of 12 In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon'ble Apex Court justified the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non- compoundable.
In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that notwithstanding the fact the offence under Section 498A IPC is a non- compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing Crl.M.C. 5163/2015 Page 9 of 12 the FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.
11. The Courts in India are now normally taking the view that endeavour should be taken to promote conciliation and secure speedy settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs such as, matrimonial disputes between the couple or/and between the wife and her in-laws. India being a vast country naturally has large number of married persons resulting into high numbers of matrimonial disputes due to differences in temperament, life-styles, opinions, thoughts etc. between such couples, due to which majority is coming to the Court to get redressal. In its 59th report, the Law Commission of India had emphasized that while dealing with disputes concerning the family, the Court ought to adopt an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings and that it should make reasonable efforts at settlement before the commencement of the trial. Further it is also the constitutional mandate for speedy disposal of such disputes and to grant quick justice to the litigants. But, our Courts are already over burdened due to pendency of large number of cases because of which it becomes difficult for speedy disposal of Crl.M.C. 5163/2015 Page 10 of 12 matrimonial disputes alone. As the matrimonial disputes are mainly between the husband and the wife and personal matters are involved in such disputes, so, it requires conciliatory procedure to bring a settlement between them. Nowadays, mediation has played a very important role in settling the disputes, especially, matrimonial disputes and has yielded good results. The Court must exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to put an end to the matrimonial litigations at the earliest so that the parties can live peacefully.
12. Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility and is a fit case for this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.
13. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of statement made by the respondent No.2 and the compromise arrived at between the parties, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.
14. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.317/2012 Crl.M.C. 5163/2015 Page 11 of 12 dated 13.10.2012, under Sections 498A/323/34 IPC registered at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.
15. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE MARCH 04, 2016 dd Crl.M.C. 5163/2015 Page 12 of 12