Delhi High Court
Pawan Mittal & Ors vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 17 October, 2014
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4756/2014
PAWAN MITTAL & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. O.P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Ms. Gita Dhingra, Advocate with complainant
in person.
W/ASI Krishna, Police Station Uttam Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (Oral)
Crl.M.A. No.16288/2014
Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
This application is disposed off.
Crl.M.C. No.4756/2014
1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR
No.31/2010, registered under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC at police station
Uttam Nagar on 12.02.2010, on the ground that the matter has been amicably
settled between the parties.
2. Issue notice.
Mr. O.P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Ms.
Gita Dhingra, Advocate for respondent No.2/ complainant, enter appearance
and accept notice. The complainant, as well as the petitioners, who are all
present in Court in person, are also identified by the Investigating Officer
W/ASI Krishna.
3. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged by the complainant
as a result of certain domestic and matrimonial disputes that had arisen
between the parties after her marriage to the first petitioner Pawan Mittal on
23.01.2008. In addition, the complainant is stated to have filed proceedings
under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act against the petitioners.
4. Ultimately, a settlement was arrived at between the parties on
04.06.2013 before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi,
where the matter had been referred by the court below hearing proceedings
under the Domestic Violence Act. A copy of the said Settlement dated
04.06.2013 has been annexed to this petition. On the terms agreed, both the
parties have applied and also obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent
under Section 13 (B) (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 16.08.2014. A
copy of the said decree sheet has also been annexed. It is stated that the
proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act have also been
withdrawn.
5. It is stated that the first petitioner was obliged to pay a total sum of
Rs.12,60,000/- to the complainant towards full and final satisfaction of all her
claims and dues. Out of this amount, an amount of Rs.9 lakhs has already
been paid to the complainant. Towards the balance amount, Rs.1,64,000/-
have been paid in cash and the Rs.1,96,000/-have been paid through the
following bankers cheques / Demand Drafts, totalling Rs.3,60,000/-, in Court
today:
S.No. Bankers Cheque No. Dated Drawn on Amount (Rs.)
1. 282371 22.08.2014 State Bank of India 49,000/-
2. 282372 22.08.2014 State Bank of India 49,000/-
S.No. Demand Draft No. Dated Drawn on Amount (Rs.)
1. 850829 22.08.2014 Indian Bank 49,000/-
2. 850830 22.08.2014 Indian Bank 49,000/-
6. The complainant also approbates the aforesaid settlement, and states
that she has received all the aforesaid amounts and nothing further is due to
her from the petitioners. She states that she is no longer interested in
pursuing the matter and that the same be closed.
7. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall circumstances,
and since the matter has arisen out of a matrimonial and domestic dispute
where the parties have amicably settled their differences on terms, and the
complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution, no useful
purpose will be served in continuing with these proceedings.
8. Under the circumstances, 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."
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."
And specifically in respect of matrimonial disputes in Jitendra
Raghuvanshi & Ors. v. Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr. (2013) 4 SCC 58,
where the Supreme Court held as follows:-
"15. In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage
genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly,
when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the
offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to
matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the
parties have settled the same amicably and without any
pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of
justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the
exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the
subsequent criminal proceedings.
16. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in
recent times. They institution of marriage occupies an
important place and it has an important role to play in the
society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the
interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle
down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over
their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by
mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of
law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial
matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising
their extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the
power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly
and with circumspection only when the Court is
convinced, on the basis of material on record, that
allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of
process of court or that the ends of justice require that the
proceedings ought to be quashed...."
I am of the considered opinion that the matter deserves to be given a
quietus where the parties have reached an amicable settlement, and have also
obtained a divorce by mutual consent; and the complainant is no longer
interested in supporting the prosecution, thereby reducing the chances of its
success.
9. Consequently, the petition is allowed, and FIR No.31/2010 registered
under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC at police station Uttam Nagar, and all
proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.
10. The petition is disposed off.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
Judge
OCTOBER 17, 2014
dr
