Somnath Chowdhury vs State & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 4530 Del

$~13
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    CRL.M.C. 3483/2014

      SOMNATH CHOWDHURY                               ..... Petitioner
                 Through:              Mr. Mandeep Kumar, Advocate

                         versus

      STATE & ANR.                                        ..... Respondents
                         Through:      Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP with SI Manoj
                                       Kumar, PS Sarojini Nagar
                                       Mr. K. Sunil, Adv. for R-2 with R-2 in
                                       Person

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (ORAL)

CRL.M.A. 12058/2014

Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed off.

CRL.M.C. 3483/2014

1. This petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code by Shri Somnath Chowdhury, one of the co- accused in FIR No. 218/2005 registered under Section 406/498A/34 IPC at Police Station Sarojini Nagar on 04.05.2005. It is prayed that the proceedings emanating out of the said FIR in connection with which the trial court has framed charges, inter alia, against the petitioner under Section 498A of the IPC alone, be quashed on the ground that the petitioner has settled and compromised the matter with the complainant.

2. Issue notice.

3. Counsel for the State, as well as counsel for the second respondent, enter appearance and accept notice. Both the complainant and the petitioner are also identified by the Investigating Officer, Shri Manoj Kumar, Police Station Sarojini Nagar.

4. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged by the complainant on 04.05.2005 under Section 406/498A/34 IPC against four accused persons, namely, Bidyut Chowdhury, husband of the complainant; Smt. Meeta Chowdhury, mother-in-law of the complainant, the petitioner, Shri Somnath Chowdhury, who happens to be the brother-in-law of the complainant, and Shri B.K. Chowdhury, her father-in-law.

5. The petitioner was married to Smt.Ganga Chowdhury on 04.12.1997, and a girl child, Akshita, was also born to them on 23.01.2002. However, on 25.06.2012, the trial court while considering the framing of charge was pleased to discharge, Shri B.K. Chowdhury, father-in-law of the complainant, and further decided to charge the remaining accused only under Section 498A IPC.

6. It is further stated that the complainant has since entered into a settlement on 25.07.2014 with the petitioner. A perusal of the copy of the settlement which has been annexed to the petition, inter alia, shows that with a view to securing the future of the infant daughter of the complainant, the petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 5 Lacs to the complainant which would then be converted by her to a fixed deposit so that it may yield some income for the maintenance of the child, and it has also been agreed that the principal amount shall not be encashed by the complainant till the child attains majority.

7. The complainant, who is present in person, also approbates the aforesaid settlement and states that she does not want the matter to proceed

any further qua the petitioner, Shri Somnath Chowdhury, after having received the aforesaid sum of Rs. 5 Lacs by way of Demand Draft bearing No. 201322 dated 21.07.2014 favouring Akshita, D/o Ganga, drawn on ICICI Bank, in Court today. She further states that she does not even know the whereabouts of her husband, Shri Bidyut Chowdhury.

8. Counsel for the State submits that looking to overall circumstances, and since all the accused have been charged only under Section 498A of the IPC, and since the complainant has compromised the matter with the petitioner, Shri Somnath Chowdhury, on terms which would also go to supporting the minor children of the complainant and the complainant herself is not supporting the prosecution on that aspect with regard to the allegations against Shri Somnath Chowdhury, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings as far as the petitioner is concerned.

9. Looking to the decisions 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 opinion that overall circumstances of the case where the complainant has settled the matter on terms with the petitioner, Somnath Chowdhury, and has also been compensated in the aforesaid manner thereby affording greater security for her minor child, and where she is no longer

interested in supporting the prosecution of the petitioner, it is best that the proceedings against the petitioner alone are dropped in the matter.

10. Consequently, and for the reasons stated above, the proceedings as regards the petitioner, Shri Somnath Chowdhury, emanating from the aforesaid FIR No. 218/2005 registered under Section 406/498A/34 IPC at Police Station Sarojini Nagar on 04.05.2005, and currently pending before Ms. Ankita Lal, Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket, are dropped.

11. The petition stands disposed off in the above terms.

12. Dasti.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA (Judge) SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 rd