Delhi High Court
Harish & Ors. vs State & Ors. on 5 September, 2014
Author: S. P. Garg
$-
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 5th SEPTEMBER, 2014
+ CRL.M.C.2021/2013 & CRL.M.A.6222/2014
HARISH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.Bhupesh Narula, Advocate.
versus
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.N.M.Papu, Advocate for the
Complainant / Respondent No.2
along with complainant in person
with her parents.
ASI Inderpal, PS Rajouri Garden.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court)
1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred
by the petitioners for quashing of the FIR No.78/2010 registered under
Sections 498A/406/34 IPC PS Rajouri Garden. It is stated that the matter
has been settled with the respondent No.2 / complainant - Ms.Jyoti
amicably before Mediation Centre.
2. It is relevant to note that earlier the petitioners had filed
similar petition W.P.(Crl.) 1580/2012 & Crl.M.A.No.18591/2012 titled
„Harish & ors. vs. State‟ for quashing of the FIR in question. Complainant
- Ms.Jyoti was impleaded as petitioner No.6 in the said petition. The said
matter was taken up on 07.11.2012 before this Court (Justice V.K.Shali).
The Court was of the view that the settlement was not with the free
consent of the complainant - Ms.Jyoti. Specific observations in the order
dated 07.11.2012 need reproduction :
"3. It has also been stated by Mr.Sharma, learned APP
that the non claim of any permanent alimony by the
complainant seems to be actuated because of some
fear. The complainant was asked questions regarding
non claim of permanent alimony though she claimed it
to be done voluntarily by her but the conduct did not
reflect the same and tears started rolling down from
her cheeks.
4. Let the State to verify the facts independently
through some responsible officer and submit a report
regarding non claim of permanent alimony by the
complainant or her parents for and on behalf of the
daughter, who are present in Court.
5. List on 30.01.2013."
3. On 30.01.2013, parents of the complainant - Ms.Jyoti
appeared and informed the Court that the complainant was pressurized to
settle the dispute with the petitioners No.1 to 5. Status report filed by the
State indicated that the settlement was not with the free consent of the
complainant - Ms.Jyoti.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances, by an order dated
30.01.2013 the said writ petition was dismissed. It appears that the
petitioners did not challenge the said orders.
5. Subsequently, the petitioners filed the instant petition
(Crl.M.C. 2021/2013) on 17.05.2013 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing of the FIR in question. Since the petitioners had claimed change
of circumstances after dismissal of previous petition, notice was ordered
to be issued to the complainant - Ms.Jyoti. On 28.10.2013, counsel for the
complainant - Ms.Jyoti put appearance and informed the Court that the
settlement was not with the consent of the complainant - Ms.Jyoti. She
was directed to appear in person to ascertain if the settlement had taken
place with her free consent. Today, the complainant appeared in person
with her counsel and parents. I have enquired from her if she has settled
the dispute with the petitioners with her free consent. She categorically
stated that the said settlement was not with her free consent and nothing
has been paid to her towards her maintenance etc.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon
„Mohd.Shamim and ors. vs. Nahid Begum (Smt.) and anr.‟, (2005) 3 SCC
302; „Manoj Sharma vs. State & ors.‟, JT 2008 (11) SC 674, and „Jaibir &
ors. vs. State & anr.‟, 142 (2007) DLT 141 emphasized that the
complainant cannot be permitted to resile from the agreement / settlement
arrived at before the Mediation Centre. Divorce by mutual consent has
already taken place and the complainant has withdrawn her petition under
DV Act. The complainant‟s only motive is to harass the petitioners by
continuing the proceedings under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC. Learned
counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the present
petition is not maintainable in view of dismissal of earlier petition on
similar grounds.
7. Since the earlier petition on similar grounds was dismissed
by a speaking order, the present petition on similar grounds without any
change in circumstances is not maintainable.
8. Besides above, the complainant who has categorically denied
to have settled the dispute amicably with the petitioners with her free
consent cannot be compelled to give her consent for quashing of the FIR
in question under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC which otherwise is non-
compoundable. Perusal of the compromise deed reveals that despite the
complainant agreeing to withdraw the petition under DV Act; to give
divorce by mutual consent and to co-operate in quashing of the FIR in
question, nothing was given in return to her towards her permanent
alimony. Ex-facie, the settlement between the parties appears to be under
some pressure. It is pertinent to note that even before filing of the second
motion for divorce by mutual consent, the petition for quashing of the FIR
was moved.
9. In the light of above discussion, I find no merit in the present
petition and it is dismissed with costs of ` 5,000/- to be paid to the
complainant within two weeks. Pending application also stands disposed
of.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 05, 2014 / tr
