Delhi High Court
Abhinav Seth & Ors vs State & Anr on 24 November, 2014
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4035/2014
ABHINAV SETH & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.K. Anand, Advocate with
petitioners in person.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, APP for the State with
SI Manohar Lal, PS Rajouri Garden.
Mr. Raman Sahway, Advocate for R-
2 with R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking
quashing of FIR No. 12/2013 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at
Police Station Rajouri Garden on 5th January, 2013 on the ground that the
matter has been amicably settled between the parties.
2. Issue notice.
Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor enters appearance and
accepts notice on behalf of the State/respondent No.1.
3. Petitioners as well as complainant/respondent No.2-Charika Seth are
present in person and are identified by the Investigating Officer SI Manohar
Lal, Police Station Rajouri Garden.
4. The aforesaid FIR is stated to have been lodged by respondent
No.2/complainant consequent upon certain matrimonial and domestic
disputes that arose between the parties pursuant to her marriage with
petitioner No.1-Abhinav Yadav on 4th December, 2011.
5. It is stated that in an application seeking anticipatory bail moved by
petitioner No.1 before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis
Hazari Courts, the matter was referred in Mediation and on 18th March,
2013 both the parties arrived at an amicable settlement. In terms thereof,
petitioner No.1 had agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.27,00,000/- in full and
final settlement to the complainant against all her claims and dues. At the
same time parties have also obtained decree of divorce by way of mutual
consent under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. A copy of
the decree sheet dated 28th March, 2014 granting divorce to the complainant
and petitioner No.1 in HMA petition No. 961B/2014 has also been annexed
with this petition. In terms of the aforesaid settlement arrived at before the
Mediation Centre on 18th March, 2013, petitioner has undertaken to pay a
sum of Rs.27,00,000/- in full and final settlement of all the dues of the
complainant. Apart from this, petitioners have already handed over the
istridhan articles enumerated in the said settlement deed to the complainant.
Out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.27,00,000/-, Rs.22,00,000/- already
stands paid to the complainant. Balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is paid to
the complainant in the Court today by way of a demand draft bearing
No.336992 dated 20th November, 2014 drawn on Axis Bank, Nehru Place,
Delhi. Further the petitioner has also today handed over two sets of
diamond earrings (four in number) to the complainant in Court. Counsel for
the petitioner further states on instructions from the petitioner, all of whom
are present in Court, that petitioners are also willing to pay any costs that
may be imposed by this Court.
6. The statements of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are recorded separately
wherein they have undertaken to ensure that there will be no untoward
incident between the families of petitioners and respondent No.2 in future.
The said undertaking is accepted by this Court and petitioners are directed to
remain bound by the same.
7. The complainant approbates the aforesaid settlement and states that
with the receipt of the aforesaid amount and two sets of diamond earrings
she has no further grievance in the matter. She states that she does not wish
to pursue the matter any further and prays that the same be closed.
8. Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that
looking to the overall circumstances and since the matter pertains to
domestic and matrimonial dispute; where the parties have amicably settled
the matter and have obtained divorce by mutual consent; and the
complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution, no useful
purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings and the FIR be
quashed, however, subject to payment of some costs in view of the fact that
State machinery was involved in the investigation and prosecution.
9. Under the circumstances and looking to the decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of 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 basis of a settlement
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 opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus,
since the parties have resolved their differences and have obtained divorce
by mutual consent; and since the complainant is no longer interested in
supporting the prosecution, because of which, its chances of success in the
matter are now greatly diminished.
10. Consequently, FIR No. 12/2013 registered under Sections
498A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Rajouri Garden on 5th January, 2013 and
all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed, subject however,
to payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as costs to the Indigent and Disabled Lawyers'
Fund of the Bar Council of Delhi within fifteen days from today. Proof of
deposit of costs be filed within one week thereafter with the Registry with
another copy to the Investigating Officer.
11. The petition stands disposed off.
12. A copy of this judgment be given dasti.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 24, 2014
AK
Crl. M.C. 4035/2014
Statement of Mr. Vinod Seth, S/o Late Om Parkash Seth, aged about
63 years, R/o A-2/55 Rajouri Garden, Delhi.
On S.A.
I am petitioner No.2 in this matter and I am also the father of
petitioner No.1-Abhinav Seth in the present petition which has been filed for
quashing of FIR No. 12/2013 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at
Police Station Rajouri Garden, lodged against me and the petitioners at the
instance of Respondent No.2/complainant. The entire dispute which was
domestic in nature has been settled between my son-petitioner No.1 and the
complainant in Mediation on 18th March, 2013 on terms. I further state that
petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have obtained divorce by mutual
consent. After the aforesaid settlement and grant of divorce, both the
families have nothing to do with each other. Hence, I assure this Court that I
shall not either directly or indirectly approach respondent No.2 or her family
members so as to give rise to any cause for complaint. I pray that this
undertaking of mine be accepted by this Court and the aforesaid FIR be
quashed.
RO & AC
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J
NOVEMBER 24, 2014
Crl. M.C. 4035/2014
Statement of Mr. Abhinav Seth, S/o Mr. Vinod Seth, aged about 30
years R/o A-2/55 Rajouri Garden, Delhi.
On S.A.
I am the first petitioner in this matter. I am working for the company
called Systra Private Limited as a Manager (Business Development). I was
married to the complainant/respondent No.2 Charika and our marriage has
been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent on 28.3.2014. I
have since settled all my disputes and differences in Mediation on 18.3.2013
and in terms thereof I have also today paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs being the
final instalment of the agreed amount of Rs.27 lakhs to the complainant.
Besides this, I have also handed over two sets of gold and diamond earrings
as a part of the aforesaid settlement dated 28.3.2014. After the settlement,
we now have nothing to do with each other and I assure this court that I shall
not try to interact or get in touch with the complainant or her family
members, either directly or indirectly in future, and I assure the court that
there will be no complaint in this behalf in future. I pray that the aforesaid
FIR No. 12/2013 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at Police
Station Rajouri Garden at the instance of the complainant be quashed.
RO & AC
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J
NOVEMBER 24, 2014
