Rishi Khurana & Ors. vs State & Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 5899 Del

I- 31
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                   Date of Decision: August 13, 2015

+     CRL.M.C. 3608/2014
      RISHI KHURANA & ORS.                                  ..... Petitioners
                   Through:             Petitioners in person.

                          versus

      STATE & ANR.                                    ..... Respondents
                          Through:      Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma,
                                        Additional Public Prosecutor for
                                        respondent-State with ASI Jaswant
                                        Singh

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                          JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

Quashing of FIR No. 95/2011, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Crime Against Women Cell, Nanakpura, New Delhi is sought in this petition.

Efforts to obtain presence of respondent No.2 have gone in vain, as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State informs on instructions from ASI Jaswant Singh that the whereabouts of respondent- complainant are not known.

Petitioner No.1 present in the Court has drawn attention of this Court to copy of order of 7th February, 2013 of the learned matrimonial court to show that the settlement, as reflected in the bail order of 29 th

Crl.M.C.No. 3608/2014 Page 1 August, 2012 (Annexure-B), has been acted upon. Along with this petition, affidavit of respondent No.2 has been filed, wherein she has affirmed that she has been duly compensated and she has no objection to the quashing of FIR in question. Copy of the decree of divorce of 30 th April, 2014 is also on record.

Despite all efforts, presence of second respondent, who is the complainant of FIR in question, could not be obtained. Petitioners submit that she is not appearing before the trial court as well.

Be that as it may. In the case of Jitender Raghyvanshi & ors. vs. Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr. (2013) 4 SCC 58, wherein Apex Court in respect of the matrimonial disputes has specifically held as under:-

"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

Crl.M.C.No. 3608/2014 Page 2 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...."

In „Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab‟ (2012) 10 SCC 303, Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-

"Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.

Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor."

The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466. The pertinent observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (supra)

Crl.M.C.No. 3608/2014 Page 3 are as under:-

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 to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are

Crl.M.C.No. 3608/2014 Page 4 not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the 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 predominantly 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 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are 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 IPC 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 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if

Crl.M.C.No. 3608/2014 Page 5 proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. 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 latter 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

Crl.M.C.No. 3608/2014 Page 6 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 to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC 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 IPC 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."

Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties and decree of divorce has been already passed, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 95/2011, under

Crl.M.C.No. 3608/2014 Page 7 Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Crime Against Women Cell, Nanakpura, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners.

This petition is accordingly disposed of.

                                                   (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                     JUDGE
August 13, 2015
r




Crl.M.C.No. 3608/2014                                        Page 8