Delhi High Court
Rajender Kumar vs State & Anr on 15 September, 2014
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI'
+ CRL.M.C. 3937/2014
RAJENDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.B. Sharma, Advocate.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP for the State
with SI Arvind Kumar, PS Bindapur.
Mr. M.S. Yadav, Advocate for the
complainant with complainant in
person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (Oral)
1. This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR
No. 139/2011 under Sections 498-A/406/506 IPC registered at Police
Station Bindapur on 28th May, 2011 on the ground that the matter has been
settled between the parties.
2. Issue notice.
3. Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP for the State and Mr. M.S. Yadav, Advocate
enter appearance and accept notice on behalf of the State and respondent
No.2/complainant, respectively.
4. The complainant and the petitioner are present in person and are
identified by both the counsel. Counsel for respondent No.2 states that he
shall be filing his vakalatnama during the course of the day. Let the same
be done.
5. The aforesaid FIR came to be lodged by respondent No.2 as a result
of certain domestic and matrimonial disputes that have arisen between the
complainant-Priti Gupta and the petitioner as a consequence of her marriage
to petitioner-Rajender Kumar on 27th November, 2004. In addition,
respondent No.2 is also stated to have instituted proceedings under Section
125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance along with Section 12 of the Domestic
Violence Act.
6. On 12th November, 2013 a settlement was recorded between the
parties before the Counsellor attached to the Family Court where the matter
was referred by the concerned Court dealing with complainant's application
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In terms thereof the parties are stated to have
settled all their disputes; and have also obtained a divorce by mutual consent
under Section 13 B (II) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in HMA No.
391/2014 on 16th June, 2014. A copy of the decree sheet is attached to this
petition.
7. In terms of the aforesaid settlement dated 12th November, 2013, the
proceedings pending under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance along with
Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act have also been brought to an end
by the complainant. A copy of the said settlement is also annexed to the
present petition.
8. When the matter was taken up initially on an examination of the
terms and conditions as agreed to in the aforesaid settlement, I noticed that
two daughters were born to the complainant and the accused petitioner,
namely, Nehul and Tanvi. These children, who are stated to be 8 and 4 years
old, are to remain in the sole custody of the complainant Priti Gupta
exclusively. The only arrangement for their maintenance and upkeep, as
agreed to by the petitioner in the settlement, is a monthly payment of Rs.
2,000/- till the daughters reach the age of majority. To my mind, this is
extremely meagre. Moreover, this arrangement calls for the Court's
supervision over the petitioner to ensure its compliance even after quashing
of the criminal proceedings pending against him. Consequently, the matter
was passed over to be taken up after lunch to enable the petitioner to think it
over.
9. After lunch, when the matter was taken up, the petitioner, who had
produced an identity card issued by the Dayawati College of Law in
Ghaziabad, flatly refused to make any further commitment to the financial
security of his minor daughters either by placing some funds in a fixed
deposit till they attain majority or even otherwise. The petitioner and his
counsel appear to have taken the stand that since the parties have entered
into a settlement, and have also obtained a divorce by mutual consent,
therefore, this Court has no option and is now bound to quash the
prosecution. Significantly, the investigation in the matter has been
completed and the charge-sheet is stated to have been filed. Further, charges
are also stated to have been framed by the Trial Court and the matter is now
posted for prosecution evidence.
10. Under the circumstances, this court has once again specifically asked
the petitioner, who is present in court, to propose a reasonable arrangement
for the upkeep of the minor children. This Court had also suggested the
creation of a fixed deposit in the names of petitioner's minor daughters
where the monthly interest earned can be utilized towards their
maintenance. However, the petitioner has insisted that a settlement has been
arrived at with the complainant and the same may be given effect to. It
appears that the petitioner is of the impression that simply because a
settlement has been reached with the complainant, therefore, he has some
vested right to compel the court to quash the criminal proceedings pending
against him.
11. Looking to the overall circumstances, and the attitude of the
petitioner accused, I do not consider it a fit case to quash the prosecution in
this matter. This Court cannot be turned into an executing court to oversee
the monthly payments for minor daughters, as proposed by the petitioner,
for the next fourteen years, especially when the marriage between the
parties has been dissolved on terms; and they shall be left with no rights
towards each other after quashing of the FIR concerned.
12. No doubt inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. are of a wide amplitude, however, such power needs to be exercised
with great caution, and only in appropriate cases to do real and substantial
justice; the underlying principle being to secure the ends of justice or to
prevent abuse of the process of the court. Such exercise need not be effected
in cases where the accused-petitioner does not appear to have genuinely
considered all relevant aspects; particularly the maintenance of his minor
daughters, while entering into a settlement with the complainant. This
inherent power is to be exercised sparingly, and with restraint; and only
when the Court is convinced, upon consideration of the facts and
circumstances of the case, that the parties have amicably resolved the entire
dispute among them and quashing of criminal proceedings will not lead to
injustice or unfairness. Any party who seeks to virtually wash his hands off
his minor daughters for a pittance, without a qualm, to my mind, does not
inspire confidence nor does it appeal to the conscience of this Court and
cannot be termed as a fit case for quashing; and it would be wholly
inappropriate for the High Court to set such a precedent. This is a matter in
which the trial must be completed.
13. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
14. The trial court is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance
with law.
15. A copy of this order be communicated to the Trial Court.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J
SEPTEMBER 15, 2014
rd
