Tejwant Singh & Ors. vs State & Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 7852 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      CRL.M.C. 2669/2013
                                      Date of Decision: October 13th, 2015
       TEJWANT SINGH & ORS.                             ..... Petitioners
                    Through           Mr.Manjeet Singh, Adv. with
                                      Mr.Jasvinder Singh,

                            versus

       STATE & ANR.                                   ..... Respondents
                            Through   Mr.Arun K. Sharma, APP for the
                                      State.

              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. 352/2011 dated 11.10.2011, under

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

Nagar on the basis the settlement agreement arrived at between the

complainant/respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Sapandeep Kaur and the

petitioners, namely, Sh. Tejwant Singh (husband of the complainant), Sh.

Varyam Singh (father-in-law of the complainant), Sh. Inder Singh (grand

father-in-law of complainant), Smt. Balvinder Kaur (mother-in-law of the

complainant), Sh. Jaswinder Singh (brother-in-law of the complainant)

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

Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 20.07.2015.

2. Respondent No.2 and Sh. Tejwant Singh (on behalf of all the other

petitioners) have settled all their differences and disputes as recorded by

the Mediation report filed on record dated 20.07.2015. Both the parties

have agreed to withdraw the allegations made by them against each other

and/or against the parents and relatives of each other. Respondent no.2

and petitioner no.1 have agreed to dissolve their marriage by obtaining a

decree of divorce by filing joint petition. Petitioner no.1 has undertaken to

bear all the expenses incurred in obtaining the decree of divorce and

respondent no.2 has undertaken to cooperate with her husband/petitioner

no.1 in getting the divorce by mutual consent. It is further agreed between

the parties that the custody of the minor child namely, Baby Gurpreet

Kaur shall remain with the father/petitioner no.1. Respondent no.2 shall

have visitation rights. It is agreed that in addition of Rs.75,000/- already

paid to the respondent no.2, an additional amount of Rs.2,00,000/- shall

be paid to the respondent no.2 towards all the claims including istridhan,

permanent alimony and maintenance past, present and future. A sum of

Rs.50,000/- shall be paid at the time of recording first motion of divorce

by way of cash or by demand draft in the name of respondent no.2 and a

sum of Rs.75,000/- shall be paid at the time of recording the second

motion of divorce by way of cash or demand draft in name of respondent

no.2. Another sum of Rs.75,000/- shall be paid at the time of quashing of

the FIR in question. It is also agreed between the parties that respondent

no.2 after receiving a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- will have no claim, right, title

or interest in the properties owned and to be owned by the petitioners. 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.

3. 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."

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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 59 th

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.

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. 352/2011 dated

11.10.2011, under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC, 1860 registered at Police

Station Tilak Nagar and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed

against the petitioners.

11. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE

OCTOBER 13, 2015 dd