Pramod Singh & Ors vs State & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 4139 Del

$~
*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+         CRL.M.C. 3972/2014
          PRAMOD SINGH & ORS                     ..... Petitioners
              Through     Mr. Saurav Bhasin, Advocate with petitioners.

                             versus

          STATE & ORS                                 ..... Respondents
              Through        Mr. Arun Bhushan, Advocate with R 2 and 3.
                             Mr. O. P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor.
                             Sub Inspector Brahm Prakash.
          CORAM:
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

%         SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (Oral)

Crl.M.A. No.13643/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is disposed off.

Crl.M.c. No.3972/2014 & Crl.M.A. No.13642/2014

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.169/2014 registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at police station Ranhola, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.

2. Issue notice.

3. Mr. O.P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, as well as Mr. Arun Bhushan, Advocate for the complainants, who are arrayed as respondents 2 and 3 herein, accept notice.

4. The Investigating Officer Brahm Prakash identifies the petitioners as well as the complainants in Court.

5. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be instituted by the complainants as a result of some misunderstanding between the parties in

connection with the marriage arrangements between the second respondent Smt. Seema with the first petitioner Pramod Singh. The marriage was ultimately abandoned. The matter is stated to be pending investigation, and the parties have since compromised. It is stated that in this connection, on 21.03.2014, a communication was given by the petitioners, along with the third respondent Sh. Kanchi Singh, father of Smt. Seema, to the concerned S.H.O. police station Ranhola, stating that the disputes have been resolved and parties have reconciled, and they do not want to pursue any legal proceedings against each other. The parties thereafter are also stated to have executed a Compromise Deed to this effect. A copy of the said Deed is also annexed to this petition.

6. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall circumstances; and since the complainants are not interested in pursuing their complaint, or even support the investigation any further, there is hardly any likelihood of the prosecution, even if launched, succeeding; and therefore, 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 satisfied that the matter deserves to be given a quietus since the disputes have been settled between the parties, and the complainants are not interested in pursuing the matter, which is at the initial stage of investigation, any further; subject to the petitioners depositing a total amount of Rs.5,500/- with the Indigent and Disabled Lawyers Fund of Bar Council of Delhi within one week from today. Proof of costs shall be filed with the Registry of this Court within one week thereafter, with a copy to the Investigating Officer.

8. Counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, states that the costs shall be deposited within the time granted.

9. Consequently, the petition is allowed, and FIR No.169/2014 registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at police station Ranhola, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.

10. The petition, along with Crl.M.A. No.13642/2014, is disposed off.

11. Dasti.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA Judge SEPTEMBER 03, 2014/dr