Dileep Singh Bishta And Ors vs The State Nct Of Delhi And Anr
2015 Latest Caselaw 7399 Del

$~39
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                          Judgment delivered on: 29th September, 2015

+                         CRL.M.C. No.4022/2015

DILEEP SINGH BISHTA AND ORS                                ..... Petitioners
                   Represented by:           Mr. R.B. Singh, Adv. with
                                             petitioner No.1 in person.

                  versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR                ..... Respondents
                  Represented by: Mr. Kamal Kr. Ghei, APP
                                  with WSI Beena, PS CAW
                                  Cell.
                                  Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. for
                                  R-2 with respondent No.2. in
                                  person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

Crl. M.A.No.14329/2015 (for exemption) Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

CRL.M.C. No.4022/2015

1. Vide the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 109/2011 registered at Police Station Maurice Nagar, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against them.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit that

the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Dharma Rawat, consequent upon certain matrimonial and domestic disputes having arisen between the parties. Thereafter both the parties approached the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari courts, Delhi and settle their disputes vide order dated 7th July, 2014. As per the settlement, the petitioners agreed to pay an amount of Rs.6,15,000/- (Six lakhs fifteen thousand) in total to respondent No.2. An amount of Rs.2,15,000/-(Two lakhs fifteen thousand) was paid at the time of recording of statement of first motion, Rs.2,00,000/- (two lakhs) was paid at the time of statement of second motion and Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh) each to be paid at the time of quashing of the present FIR and FIR No. 392/2013, PS Kotwali Dehat, Buland Sehar (UP) under Sections 307/504/323/147 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an amount of Rs. Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh) is paid today by way of Demand Draft bearing No.423501 drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, New Delhi in favour of the respondent No.2, which facts have not been disputed by the respondent No.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners shall pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh) at the time of quashing the FIR No. 392/2013 Buland Sehar, UP.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that consequent to the said settlement, marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has been dissolved vide decree of mutual divorce dated 23rd March, 2015. Since the agreed amount has been paid by the petitioners, thus, respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue her case further against the petitioners.

4. Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court through her

counsel Mr. Rakesh Kumar. She has been duly identified by the Investigating Officer WSI Beena of Police Station CAW Cell. The respondent No.2 does not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the present matter has been amicably settled, marriage between her and the petitioner No.1 has been dissolved vide decree of divorce dated 23rd March, 2015, she has received the entire agreed amount and has no complaints whatsoever against the petitioner No.1 and his family members. Respondent No. 2 submits that she has no objection if the present FIR be quashed subject to the petitioners filing the petition for quashing the FIR No. 392/2013 registered at Buland Sehar (UP) as noted above.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that after investigation charge-sheet has been filed case is pending for prosecution evidence. He submits that the present matter is a matrimonial one and since the respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the case further against petitioners, no purpose would be served if the petitioners are directed to face trial.

6. In view of the overall circumstances; and looking to the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, which has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant; and also Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:-

"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."

7. In the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. Vs. Babita

Raghuvanshi & Anr., (2013) 4 SCC 58, the Full Bench of the Supreme Court in respect of the matrimonial disputes has specifically held as follows:-

"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. 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...."

8. Both the parties who are present in the Court today, approbate the aforesaid settlement dated 7th July, 2014 and undertake to remain bound by the same.

9. Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties and the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution because of which, its chances of success in the matter are now greatly diminished. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh (supra) and Jitendra Raghuvanshi (supra) and in the facts and circumstances as noted above, I am of the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus as continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.

10. Keeping in view the settlement arrived at between parties and the statement of respondents No.1 and 2, I am of the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus as continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.

11. Consequently, FIR No. 109/2011 registered at Police Station Maurice Nagar, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 406/ 498A/34 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.

12. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed.

SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 nk