Delhi High Court
Ashish Sachdeva & Anr. vs State & Anr. on 17 August, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
I-10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: August 17, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 925/2014 & Crl.M.A.No. 3128/2014
ASHISH SACHDEVA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Deepak Thukral &
Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh, Advocates
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ashish Dutta, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Raj Pal
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 114/2011, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the
IPC, registered at police station Kirti Nagar, New Delhi is sought on the
basis of settlement, as reflected in the order of joint statement of parties
recorded before the matrimonial court in proceedings under Section 13
(B) (2) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Annexure P-2) colly.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the settlement reached
between the parties has been already acted upon and decree of divorce
has been passed on 8th May, 2013 and the respondent No.2- complainant
has remarried and therefore, she is not coming forward for quashing of
this FIR.
Crl.M.C.No. 925/2014 Page 1
A bare perusal of the previous order sheets shows that respondent
has been served but none has appeared on her behalf. By deliberately
avoiding to appear before this Court, respondent No.2 cannot get hearing
in this petition deferred and since she has remarried, therefore, no
purpose would be served in obtaining her presence by coercive steps.
The factum of settlement of the matrimonial dispute is evident from the
certified copies of joint statement of parties (Annexure P-2 colly) and
judgment of 8th May, 2013 of the Matrimonial Court, vide which divorce
by mutual consent has been granted to the parties.
In the case of Jitender Raghyvanshi & ors. vs. Babita Raghuvanshi
& Anr. (2013) 4 SCC 58, 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 less hesitant in exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction.
Crl.M.C.No. 925/2014 Page 2
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...."
Applying the aforenoted dictum to the facts of this case, this Court
finds that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the
proceedings arising out of FIR in question.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 114/2011, under
Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Kirti Nagar,
New Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua
petitioners.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
August 17, 2015
r
Crl.M.C.No. 925/2014 Page 3
