Delhi High Court
Vikas Thawani & Anr vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 27 August, 2014
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3234/2014 & Crl.M.A. No.11275/2014
VIKAS THAWANI & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.Sumit Rana, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Additional Public Prosecutor .
Mr. Satinder Singh, Advocate for R2.
Sub Inspector Rajesh Kumar, P.S. Vikas Puri.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA,J. (Oral)
1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR
No.251/2011, registered under Section 498-A, 406, 34 IPC police station
Vikas Puri, at the instance of the complainant Vineeta Khemani, who has
been arrayed as respondent No.2, on the ground that the matter has been
settled between the parties.
2. Issue notice.
3. Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Additional Public Prosecutor, and Mr. Satinder
Singh, Advocate for the second respondent / complainant, accept notice.
4. The petitioners as well as the complainant are present in person, and
they are identified by the Investigating Officer Sub Inspector Rajesh.
5. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be registered at the instance
of complainant as a result of certain matrimonial disputes between the
complainant and the first petitioner Vikas Thawani, to whom she is married.
At that time, a petition, being HMA No.694/2011, seeking divorce had also
been filed by the first petitioner against the second respondent. Ultimately,
the matter was settled on terms recorded by the Family Court on 26.09.2013
in the aforesaid HMA No.694/2011. In terms of the said settlement, a total
sum of Rs.7,13,000/- was to be paid by the first petitioner to the
complainant. Out of this amount, Rs.6,13,000/- stand paid, and the balance
amount of Rs.1 lakh has been handed over to the complainant in Court
today by way of a Demand Draft bearing No.004784, drawn on Axis Bank,
dated 05.07.2014. The complainant approbates the terms of the settlement
recorded in the joint statement given by her on 26.09.2013 in HMA
No.194/2011, which has been annexed to this petition. She further states
that she does not wish to continue with these proceedings and the same be
closed.
6. Counsel for the State submits that the charge sheet in the matter has
been filed and the same is pending trial. He further states that looking to the
overall circumstances, and in view of the fact that the matter arises out of a
matrimonial disputes where the complainant is no longer interested in
supporting the prosecution, no useful purpose will be served in continuing
with these proceedings.
7. Under the circumstances, 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."
8. I am of the opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus,
which has principally arisen out of matrimonial discord between the
complainant and the first petitioner, and where orders granting prayer of
divorce by mutual consent are also stated to have been passed and only the
formal decree remains to be drawn up; no useful purpose will be served in
continuing with these proceedings, more so since the complainant herself is
not interested in supporting the prosecution, thereby greatly reducing the
chances of its success.
9. Consequently, the petition is allowed, and FIR No.251/2011,
registered under Section 448, 406, 34 IPC police station Vikas Puri, and all
proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.
10. The petition, along with Crl.M.A. No.11275/2014, is disposed off.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J
AUGUST 27, 2014
dr
