Delhi High Court
Amit Sharma & Anr vs State & Anr on 27 August, 2014
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3783/2014
AMIT SHARMA & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Pradeep Kumar and Mr. Praveen Kumar,
Advocates with petitioners.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor.
ASI Davender Kumar.
V. Gandharva, Advocate with complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral)
1. This petition moved inter alia, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks
quashing of FIR No.599/2008, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered
at police station Dwarka, on the ground that the matter has been settled
between the parties.
2. Issue notice.
3. Ms. Nishi Jain, APP for the State, and Mr. Gandharva, counsel for the
complainant, accept notice.
4. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be instituted by the
complainant / second respondent out of certain disputes that had arisen
between the parties. Ultimately, the parties have entered into a settlement
by executing a Memorandum of Understanding dated 23.03.2013. In terms
of the said MOU, which was executed, inter alia, by the petitioners with the
complainant, the complainant was to receive a total sum of Rs.7 lakhs at
different stages mentioned in the settlement, in full and final satisfaction of
all her claims. As against this amount, the complainant, who is present in
person, acknowledges that she has already received Rs.6 lakhs, and the
remaining amount of Rs.1 lakh has now been received by way of a banker's
cheque bearing No.352520, dated 26.08.2014, drawn on State Bank of
Patiala. She states that, with this receipt, she has no further claims, and also
prays that the proceedings be brought to an end.
5. The petitioners as well as the complainant are identified by the
Investigating Officer ASI Davender Kumar in Court.
6. Counsel for the State also submits that looking to the overall
circumstances; and since the matter, which has arisen primarily out of a
domestic dispute between the parties; and where the complainant is no
longer interested in supporting the prosecution thereby diminishing the
chances of its success; no useful purpose will be served in continuing with
these proceedings.
7. Consequently, and looking to the decision 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."
I am of the opinion the matter deserves to be given a quietus since the
complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution, thereby
reducing the chances of its success; and further, since the parties have
obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent, and have settled their
disputes.
8. Consequently, the petition is allowed and FIR No.599/2008, under
Sections 498-A/406 IPC registered at police station Dwarka, and all
proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.
9. The petition stands disposed off.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
Judge
AUGUST 27, 2014
dr
