Jitender Ahuja vs State & Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 7536 Del

$~21
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      CRL.M.C. 270/2015
                                       Date of Decision : October 05th, 2015


       JITENDER AHUJA                                  ..... Petitioner
                    Through            Mr.Mahesh K. Gautam, Adv.

                           versus

       STATE & ANR.                                      ..... Respondents
                           Through     Mr.Satya Narayan, APP for the State
                                       with ASI Shri Ram.
                                       Respondent no.2 in person.

              CORAM:
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

       P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed

by the petitioner, for quashing of FIR No.392/2011 dated 06.09.2011,

under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC, 1860 registered at Police Station

Hari Nagar, New Delhi on the basis of settlement arrived at between

the complainant/respondent No.2, namely, Jaspreet Kaur and the

petitioner, namely, Jitender Ahuja.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State

submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been

identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question

by ASI-Shri Ram .

3. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the

dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. Respondent

no.2 has no grievances against the petitioner. The parties with the

intervention of their family friends and relative have settled the matter

amicably and the parties have decided to bring an end to the existing

dispute. However, the said settlement was never reduced into writing.

The respondent no. 2 has waived all her claims towards permanent

alimony and maintenance, however, she has received all dowry

articles and istridhan from the petitioner. The petitioner and

respondent no. 2 have also got divorce vide divorce decree dated

23/08/2012. The affidavit dated 14/11/2014 of respondent no. 2-Ms.

Jaspreet Kaur, giving consent for quashing of the FIR in question has

been filed on record. In the affidavit the respondent no. 2 stated that

she has settled all the disputes with the petitioner and has waived all

her rights. In the affidavit the respondent no. 2 has totally supported

the present petition for quashing. As the dispute between the parties

has been resolved no useful purpose will be served in continuing the

prosecution of the petitioner. Now no dispute with the petitioner

survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be

brought to an end. Statement of the respondent No.2 has been

recorded in this regard in which she stated that she has entered into a

compromise with the petitioner and has settled all the disputes with

him. She further stated that she has no objection if the FIR in

question is quashed.

4. In Gian Singh v. 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:-

"61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings."

5. 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 relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh

(Supra) 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 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 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 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."

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court is of the considered

opinion that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are ought

to be exercised in the absence of express provisions of law to prevent

the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

Matrimonial litigation is one of the cases where the dispute arises on

small issues or differences at a particular point of time which

culminates into the situation of entering into the litigation. These

differences if not permitted to be sort out immediately or during the

short tenure then it leads to the multiplicity of the litigation and makes

the life of the family members/relatives as hell. This Court is of the

considered opinion that in matrimonial disputes, the Court must

exercise inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends

of justice and to avoid the abuse of process of law. When normally

the litigation is being initiated, some non-compoundable offences are

also alleged between the parties. Definitely, if the offences are

compoundable and are covered under Section 320 Cr.P.C, then the

parties could settle down the dispute and compound the offences, but

due to the addition of non-compoundable offences, it becomes endless

litigation despite settling down the matter between the parties and

unnecessarily the litigation is being prolonged. In other words, it

could be termed that the pendency of such a litigation tantamount to

abuse of process of law. The High Court while exercising the

inherent power to secure the ends of justice ought to exercise its

power to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of

justice. In other words, if the matrimonial disputes are being settled

down, this Court is of the considered opinion that the High Court

must exercise its inherent power and put an end to the litigation

between the parties arisen on account of matrimonial dispute.

7. The incorporation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provision

of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is

abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured;

where the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to

avoid the causing of harassment to any person by using the provision

of Cr.P.C. or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery of

justice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to

circumvent the express provisions of law.

8. Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial,

which now stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties,

therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in

question would be an exercise in futility and is a fit case for this Court

to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.

9. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of

statement made by the respondent No.2, the FIR in question warrants

to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be

quashed.

10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.392/2011

dated 06.09.2011, under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC, 1860

registered at Police Station Hari Nagar, New Delhi and the

proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioner.

11. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE OCTOBER 05, 2015/dd