Delhi High Court
Sandeep & Ors. vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. on 8 January, 2013
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 8th January, 2013
+ CRL. M.C. 41/2013
SANDEEP & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ramashankar Adv. with
Mr. Shivom Garg, Adv.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP for the State.
Respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (Cr.P.C.) preferred by the Petitioners for quashing of FIR
No.697/2007, under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC, Police Station Okhla
Industrial Area and consequential proceedings arising out of the same.
2. FIR No.697/2007 dated 17.08.2007 was registered in the Police Station
Okhla Industrial Area on the statement of Smt. Lalita (Respondent No.2)
with regard to allegations of cruelty, demand of dowry and non return of
the dowry articles.
3. A Petition for obtaining divorce by mutual consent was preferred by the
Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 in the Family Court. By an order
dated 05.11.2012, the second motion was allowed and the marriage
between Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent No.2 was dissolved. A sum
of `1.5 lacs was paid by the Petitioner No.1 to Respondent No.2 towards
maintenance (past and future) and towards stridhan, dowry articles, etc.
etc.
4. It goes without saying that the offence punishable under Section 498-A
IPC is a non compoundable. In the case of Gian Singh v State of Punjab
& Anr. 2012 (9) SCALE 257, the three Judges Bench of the Supreme
Court dealt with the issue of quashing of FIR in non compoundable
offences. Para 57 of the report is extracted hereunder:-
"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can
be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing
a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power
given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under
Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with
no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with
the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of
justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In
what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint
or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have
settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances
of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before
exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to
the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences
of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's
family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences
are not private in nature and have serious impact on society.
Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in
relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants
while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis
for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But
the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly
civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial,
financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions
or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or
the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or
personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire
dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal
proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the
offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and
bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to
great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be
caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and
complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 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 proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding
would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement
and compromise between the victim and 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
5. All the parties are present in person. Respondent No.2 has stated that she
has entered into a Settlement with the Petitioners voluntarily without any
pressure, coercion or duress.
6. In view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, in my
view, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal
proceedings against the Petitioners.
7. The Petition is accordingly allowed and FIR No.697/2007, under Section
498-A/406/34 of IPC, Police Station Okhla Industrial Area and the
proceedings arising there from as against the Petitioners are quashed.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JANUARY 08, 2013
vk
