Raja Ram & Ors vs State & Anr
2015 Latest Caselaw 7847 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+   CRL.M.C. 300/2015
                                   Date of Decision: October 13th, 2015

    RAJA RAM & ORS                                      ..... Petitioners

                        Through:   Mr.Deepak Jain, Adv.

                        versus

    STATE & ANR
                                                       ..... Respondents
                        Through:   Mr.Manjeet Arya, APP.
                                   Mr.S.Anand, Adv. for Respondent
                                   No.2.


           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 petitioners, for quashing of FIR No.655/2005 dated

25.07.2005, under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC, 1860 registered at

Police Station Shakarpur, Delhi on the basis the settlement arrived at

between the complainant/respondent No.2, namely, Ms. Ritu Karotia

and the petitioners, namely, Sh. Raja Ram (husband of the

complainant), Sh. Sushil Kumar (father-in-law of the complainant),

Smt. Santosh (mother-in-law of the complainant), Ms. Binny (sister-

in-law of the complainant), Ms. Meenakshi (sister-in-law of the

complainant) and Sh. Ronak (brother-in-law of the complainant) in

Mediation on 29.08.2012.

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 her counsel.

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 petitioners. The respondent no. 2

has withdrawn all the allegations, which form part of her complaint,

without any undue influence, coercion, threat, fraud and

misrepresentation. The respondent no.2 has settled all her claims in

respect of permanent alimony, dowry articles, istridhan etc. All the

claims of the respondent no.2 pertaining to past, present and future

maintenance have settled for a total sum of Rs.2,10,000/-. The

petitioner no.1 has already paid a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- to respondent

no.2. The petitioner no.1 will make a final payment of Rs.50,000/- to

respondent no.2 at the time of quashing of the FIR in question. The

respondent no.2 and the petitioner no.1 have already taken divorce by

mutual consent on 07.07.2014. As the dispute between the parties has

been resolved no useful purpose will be served in continuing the

prosecution of the petitioners. Now no dispute with the petitioners

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 petitioners and has settled all the disputes with

them. 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.

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. The Courts in India are now normally taking the view that

endeavour should be taken to promote conciliation and secure speedy

settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs such as,

matrimonial disputes between the couple or/and between the wife and

her in-laws. India being a vast country naturally has large number of

married persons resulting into high numbers of matrimonial disputes

due to differences in temperament, life-styles, opinions, thoughts etc.

between such couples, due to which majority is coming to the Court to

get redressal. In its 59th report, the Law Commission of India had

emphasized that while dealing with disputes concerning the family,

the Court ought to adopt an approach radically different from that

adopted in ordinary civil proceedings and that it should make

reasonable efforts at settlement before the commencement of the trial.

Further it is also the constitutional mandate for speedy disposal of

such disputes and to grant quick justice to the litigants. But, our

Courts are already over burdened due to pendency of large number of

cases because of which it becomes difficult for speedy disposal of

matrimonial disputes alone. As the matrimonial disputes are mainly

between the husband and the wife and personal matters are involved

in such disputes, so, it requires conciliatory procedure to bring a

settlement between them. Nowadays, mediation has played a very

important role in settling the disputes, especially, matrimonial

disputes and has yielded good results. The Court must exercise its

inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to put an end to the

matrimonial litigations at the earliest so that the parties can live

peacefully.

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

which now stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties,

particularly when an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- has already been paid

and a further amount of Rs.50,000/- will be paid once the FIR in

question is quashed, 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.

10. 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.

11. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.655/2005

dated 25.07.2005, under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC, 1860

registered at Police Station Shakarpur, Delhi and the proceedings

emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.

12. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE OCTOBER 13, 2015 dd