Delhi High Court
Himanshu @Vicky vs N.C. T. Of Delhi & Ors. on 31 July, 2012
Author: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Crl. M.C. No. 2225/2012
+ Date of Decision: 31st July, 2012
# HIMANSHU @VICKY ....Petitioner
! Through: Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate
Versus
$ N.C. T. Of Delhi & Ors. ...Respondents
Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for State
Mr. J.K. Bhola, Advocate for
Respondent no. 2 with
Respondent no. 2 in person
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
JUDGMENT
P.K.BHASIN, J:
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for
quashing of the FIR no. 353/10 dated 12th, October, 2010
registered at Jagat Puri Police Station at the instance of
respondent no. 2 against the petitioner under Section 315 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case may be noted.
Marriage of the petitioner and respondent no. 2 was
solemnised in Delhi on 11th, December, 2009. Just a few
days after they got married the petitioner and his parents
allegedly started torturing her and finally on 16.09.2012, as it
has been stated in the FIR, the petitioner dragged the
respondent no. 2 from the room and kicked her in the
abdomen when she was pregnant because of which she was
hospitalised and had to get the abortion done. That incident
had led to the lodging of the FIR against the petitioner by his
wife.
3. However, thereafter with the intervention of friends and
relatives both the parties resolved their differences and had
come to an amicable settlement and it was agreed that the
petitioner would pay a sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- to the
respondent no. 2 towards full and final settlement of
maintenance, etc. They also get their marriage dissolved by
a decree of divorce by mutual consent.
4. In terms of the settlement agreement dated 20th
December, 2010 the present petition has been filed by the
petitioner for quashing the FIR. Respondent no.2,
complainant and the APP both had no objection for quashing
the FIR against the petitioner.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "B.S.
Joshi & Ors. V. State of Haryana", AIR 2003 SC 1386 had
dealt with the aspect of quashing of criminal complaints
which are non-compoundable by the High Court under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
particularly in cases arising out of the matrimonial disputes
and made the following observations:
"3. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly
different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad and Ors. :
2000CriLJ3487 are very apt for determining the approach
required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the courts,
it was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial
disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony the
main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle
down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial
skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious
proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which
elders of the family are also involved with the result that those
who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement
are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the
criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be
mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so
that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate
their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting
it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to
conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days
in chasing their "cases" in different courts.
14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter
XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to
prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of
her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing
a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to
coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of
dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive
and would act against interests of women and against the object
for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood
that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to
meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling
earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal
Code."
6. In view of the above observations of the Supreme
Court and the fact that the disputes between husband and
wife have been amicably resolved this Court is also of the
view that no useful purpose would be served by allowing
the investigation to go on in this case.
7. This petition is accordingly allowed and the FIR no.
353/2010 dated 12th October, 2010 lodged at Jagat Puri
Police Station is hereby quashed.
P.K. BHASIN, J
JULY 31, 2012
