Davinder Singh vs State Of Delhi & Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 7338 Del

$~19
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      CRL.M.C. 2318/2013
                                  Date of Decision : September 28th, 2015
       DAVINDER SINGH                                       ..... Petitioner
                         Through:       Mr.S.C.Singhal and Mr.Pradeep
                                        Verma, Advs.

                         versus

       STATE OF DELHI & ANR.                              ..... Respondent
                    Through:            Mr.Arun Kr.Sharma, Adv.
                                        ASI Shri Ram, PS: Hari Nagar.
                                        Mr.Dhiraj Manchanda, Adv.for
                                        Respondent No.2.

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

       P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.648/2006 dated 05.11.2006, under

Sections 328/498A/506 of IPC registered at Police Station Hari

Nagar, New Delhi on the basis of settlement whose terms find

mention in the compromise deed of petitioner-husband and

respondent No.2-wife made in the presence of their family members

and respectable persons entered into on 02.05.2013 at Mansa.

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 vide aforesaid

compromise deed and terms thereof have been fully acted upon as she

has received Rs.21 lakhs in the shape of demand drafts including

deficiency of dowry articles, istridhan, lifetime maintenance and

permanent alimony of complainant and this also includes the amount

of lifetime expenses of Chunmun-daughter and her educational,

matrimonial and any other expenses, if arises, which will be the

responsibility of the complainant and Chunmun will also not claim

anything in future from the petitioner and that divorce by mutual

consent has already taken place between the parties. It was also

settled between the parties that Chunmun would remain in the custody

and care of the complainant. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of

the aforesaid compromise deed and of her affidavit dated 22.05.2013

supporting this petition and submits that now no dispute with

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 pertinent 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 meet the ends of justice. So far the

matrimonial disputes are concerned, they normally happen between

the husband, the wife and her in-laws which ultimately results into the

initiation of criminal proceedings and converts into hell the life of the

husband and the wife and ultimately their entire life is being wasted in

the litigation against each other. 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 meet the

ends of justice ought to exercise its power to prevent the abuse of

process of law and to meet 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. Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial,

which now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties,

particularly when a sum of Rs.21 lakhs has already been paid,

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.

8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.648/2006,

under Sections 328/498A/506 of IPC registered at Police Station Hari

Nagar, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are

quashed against the petitioner.

9. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 28, 2015 aa