Gaurav Joshi And Ors. vs State & Anr
2014 Latest Caselaw 3858 Del

$~37
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    CRL.M.C. 3717/2014
     GAURAV JOSHI AND ORS.
                                                           ..... Petitioners
                     Through: Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate with all
                                 petitioners in person.
                          versus
     STATE & ANR
                                                        ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Amit Ahalawat, APP for the
                                State.
                                SI Saurabh Kumar PS CAW Cell,
                                Nanakpura.
                                 Mrs. Sudha Joshi,
                                complainant/second respondent in
                                person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA


% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (ORAL)

Crl.M.A. No.12843/2014

Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is disposed off.

Crl. M.C. No.3717/2014

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been moved by the petitioners seeking quashing of FIR No.58/2012 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station CAW Cell Nanakpura, Delhi, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioners and the complainant Smt. Sudha Joshi, who is arrayed as second respondent herein.

2. Issue notice.

3. Counsel for the State as well as Mrs. Sudha Joshi, second respondent/complainant enters appearance and accepts notice. The petitioners as well as the second respondent/complainant are present in person in the Court and they are identified by the Investigating Officer SI Saurabh Kumar PS CAW Cell Nanakpura.

4. It is the case of the parties that the aforesaid FIR came to be registered by the complainant/second respondent Mrs. Sudha Joshi under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC on 02.05.2012 against her husband Mr. Gaurav Joshi, who is arrayed as petitioner no.1; as well as her father-in-law Mr. R. K. Joshi, who is arrayed as petitioner no.2; and her mother-in-law Mrs. Renu Joshi, who is arrayed as petitioner no.3; and her brother-in-law Mr. Saurabh Joshi, who is arrayed as petitioner no.4; with regard to certain marital disputes and differences.

5. Counsel for the State submits that matter is still under investigation and chargesheet is yet to be filed.

6. Second respondent/complainant Smt. Sudha Joshi states that the matter has been amicably settled between her and the petitioners. She has decided to continue with her marriage and live separately along with their minor son Suveer Adity Joshi. She, therefore, states that she does not have any objection if the matter is given quietus since it is also promote harmonious relations between her husband, her in-laws and herself.

The complainant further states that she does not wish to pursue the matter any further, and that the FIR in question be quashed as prayed.

7. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall

circumstances; and since the complainant and her husband/petitioner no.1 have reconciled all the disputes and are now living together; and where the complainant is not interested in supporting the prosecution; which is at the stage of investigation, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the proceedings.

8. Looking to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, which has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant; by observing as under:

"58. ....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."

And also in Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

2014(2) Crimes 67 (SC) where the Supreme Court held as follows:-

"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the 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 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 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.

29.4 On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly 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.

29.5 While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

29.6 Offences under Section 307 Indian Penal Code would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 Indian Penal Code in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307Indian Penal Code is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can

generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

29.7 While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code is committed or

not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."

I am of the considered opinion that under the circumstances, it is best if a quietus is given to the matter, especially since the matter has arisen primarily out of a domestic dispute, where all the parties concerned have settled amicably. Moreso, since the complainant Mrs. Sudha Joshi has no further grievance and both the complainant and petitioner no.1 (husband) have decided to continue with the marriage and live separately along with their minor son Suveer Adity Joshi; and both desire to maintain their cordial relations with rest of the family. The petitioner no.1 Mr. Gaurav Joshi and the complainant Ms. Sudha Joshi are well educated and employed in senior corporate positions and furthermore, the complainant is not interested in supporting the prosecution which is at the stage of investigation. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the proceedings where the chances of any success of the prosecution are also remote.

9. For the above reasons, the petition is allowed and FIR No.58/2012 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station CAW Cell Nanakpura, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

10. The petition stands disposed off in the aforesaid terms.

11. Dasti.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

AUGUST 22, 2014 An