Jitender Kumar And Others vs State Of Nct Of Delhi And Another
2010 Latest Caselaw 2071 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        Crl.M.C. No. 3121/2009

%                   Date of Decision: 20th April, 2010


#       JITENDER KUMAR & OTHERS                         .....PETITIONERS

!                   Through:     Mr. Harsh Vardhan Surana, Adv.


                                      VERSUS

$       STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANOTHER        .....RESPONDENTS

^ Through: Mr. R.N. Vats, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State along with SI Pratibha, Police Station Mehrauli .

CORAM:

Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

This is a petition filed by the petitioners for quashing of criminal

case against them under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act in the Court of Ms.Veena Rani, Metropolitan

Magistrate, Delhi. The FIR in question is sought to be quashed on the

basis of compromise arrived at between the parties reduced into writing

in a compromise deed which is Annexure P-2 at page 20 of the paper

book.

2. This petition was heard on the last date, i.e., 16.04.2010, when

respondent No. 2, being the complainant, on whose complaint the FIR in

question was registered against the petitioners, was also present. The

marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 had taken

place on 23.11.1999. No child was born from their wedlock. On account

of matrimonial dispute between them, they started living separate since

July 2000. This led to registration of FIR in question under Sections 498-

A/406/34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the

petitioners by respondent No. 2 with Police Station Mehrauli.

3. During pendency of the criminal case under Sections 498-A/406/34

IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the

petitioners, the respondent No. 2 is stated to have settled her

matrimonial dispute with the petitioners and pursuant thereto, she has

agreed for divorce by mutual consent on petitioners paying her an

amount of Rs.50,000/- in full and final settlement of all her claims on

account of return of dowry and istridhan articles including her claim for

past, present & future maintenance. This compromise between the

parties was reduced into writing by way of compromise deed dated

06.03.2009 (Annexure P-2 at page 20 of the paper book) followed by a

memorandum of understanding dated 16.04.2009 (Annexure P-3 at page

23 of the paper book). On the basis of this compromise between the

parties, the marriage of respondent No. 2 with petitioner No.1 has

already been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent dated

16.11.2009 in Hindu Marriage Act case No. 607/2009. In the decree of

divorce by mutual consent granted to the parties, the Court has taken

note of the settlement arrived at between the parties. It has been

observed in the decree that the compromise between the parties is

without any pressure, force, fraud or coercion on respondent No. 2. It

appears that the compromise has already been acted upon by the

parties.

4. The settlement between the parties was for an amount of

Rs.50,000/-, out of which Rs.25,000/- stood already paid to her by the

time the present petition was taken up for hearing on the last date, i.e.,

16.04.2010. On that date, the petitioners had offered the balance

compromise amount of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent No. 2 in terms of

settlement, which she had refused to accept stating that before

accepting the balance compromise amount, she wants to consult her

lawyer. At her request, the case was adjourned on that date for today

making it clear that in case the counsel for the respondent No. 2 does not

come today, then in that event the Court will proceed to hear the matter

on the basis of material already on record. Strangely enough, neither

respondent No. 2 is present nor her counsel has appeared when the case

was taken up for hearing today. Under the circumstances, the Court is

left with no option but to proceed to hear the matter on the basis of

material already on record. The compromise between the parties has

already been acted upon inasmuch as the decree of divorce by mutual

consent has already been granted to the couple on the basis of their

compromise. It appears that after entering into a settlement, the

respondent No. 2 has turned dishonest by not cooperating in quashing of

criminal case filed by her against the petitioners. One of the terms of

compromise between the parties as contained in the memorandum of

understanding (Annexure P-3 at page 23 of the paper book) is extracted

below:

"And whereas the second party further undertakes to file a petition at the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for quashing of the FIR No. 658/01, U/s. 498-A/406/34 IPC, read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at P.S. Mehrauli, pending trial in the court of Ms. Veena Rani, Ld. M.M. Patiala House Courts, New Delhi."

5. A perusal of the above undertaking given by respondent No. 2 at

the time of compromise would reveal that the respondent No. 2, being

the complainant, had undertaken to get the criminal case vide FIR in

question pending against the petitioners quashed. The conduct of

respondent No. 2 in going beyond the terms of compromise contained in

the settlement documents referred hereinabove impels this Court to

accept the request of the petitioners for quashing of criminal case

pending against them. The respondent No. 2 cannot be permitted to take

advantage of her own wrong and abuse the legal machinery by

continuing with the criminal proceedings against the petitioners after

entering into a settlement with them which has also been acted upon

substantially.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case stated hereinabove, this

petition is allowed. The balance compromise amount of Rs.25,000/- that

remained unpaid to the respondent No. 2 is directed to be deposited by

the petitioners with the Registrar General of this Court within a week's

time so that the same may be released in favour of respondent No. 2 as

and when she may approach the Court for the said purpose. The FIR No.

658/2001 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act with Police Station Mehrauli is quashed. The

criminal proceedings arising out of the said FIR stated to be pending in

the Court of Ms. Veena Rani, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, are ordered

to be dropped.

APRIL 20, 2010                                  S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'BSR'