Delhi High Court

Amit & Ors. vs Versha & Anr on 12 February, 2016

Author: Siddharth Mridul

#5
*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Date of decision: 12th February, 2016

+         W.P.(CRL) 11/2016

          AMIT & ORS.                                 ..... Petitioners
                               Through    Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Advocate
                                          along with petitioners

                               versus

          VERSHA & ANR                                ..... Respondents

                               Through    Respondent no. 1 in-person
                                          Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC (Crl.) with
                                          Ms. Parul Jamwal, Advocate
                                          SI Uday Singh, P.S. Bawana
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

1. The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking

quashing of FIR No. 550/2013 under Sections 328/34 IPC registered at

Police Station- Bawana, Delhi and the proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The subject FIR came to be registered as a consequence of an

allegation made by Versha, respondent no. 1/complainant herein against

petitioner no. 1 (husband) and his family members to the effect that they had

administered a poisonous substance to her.

3. It is an admitted position that another FIR being FIR No. 58/2013

under Sections 498A/406/506/323/34 IPC was instituted by Versha, the

respondent no.1/complainant herein before P.S. Women Police Station,

District Sonepat, Haryana against petitioner no. 1 (husband) and his family

members as well, in which case the accused have been acquitted owing to

the circumstance of Versha, the complainant (wife) having turned hostile.

4. Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioners relies upon the decisions of this Court rendered on 20th March,

2015 and 16th July, 2015 in Crl. MC No. 1107/2015 titled Deepak Bedi &

Ors. vs. The State & Anr. and Crl. MC No. 1265/2015 titled Jasbir Singh &

Ors. vs. State, to urge that the subject FIR is essentially matrimonial in

nature and in view of the circumstance that the disputes which led to the

registration of the subject FIR have been mutually and amicably settled

between the parties to the union, the matter ought to be given a quietus as

continuance of proceedings arising out of the subject FIR would be an

exercise in futility.

5. Counsel for the parties state that the outstanding matrimonial dispute

between the parties to the union has been settled amicably before the District

& Sessions Judge, District Judge, Family Court, Sonipat, Haryana. The

settlement recorded by way of joint statement of the parties, as enshrined in

the order dated 2nd February, 2016 are as follows:-

" Our marriage was solemnized on 03.02.2013 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was consummated but no issue was born out of this wedlock. Due to temperamental differences, we could not live together and have decided to take divorce by way of mutual consent. We have been residing separately from each other since 25.3.2013. We have already made statement regarding this on 16.05.2015. Now we again stick to our said statement and have decided to take divorce by way of mutual consent. Our marriage has irretrievably broken down. There are no chances of our re-union. We have already settled all our disputes with regard to the permanent alimony, future maintenance and istridhan etc. The petitioner no. 1 has today received an amount of Rs. 18,44,000/- from petitioner no. 2 in lieu of her permanent alimony. The petitioner no. 1 shall not claim anything from petitioner no. 2 including any right in his property. Hence, our marriage may be dissolved by way of mutual consent."

6. In a nutshell, in the present case, it has been agreed by and between

the parties to the union that respondent no. 1 (wife) shall be paid a sum of

Rs. 18,44,000/- towards all her claims vis. a vis. permanent alimony,

stridhan, dowry articles, maintenance past, present and future etc. against the

petitioners.

7. Counsel for the parties further state that pursuant to the said settlement

between the parties to the union, the entire sum of Rs. 18,44,000/- has

already been received by respondent no.1 (wife). The latter acknowledges

receipt thereof.

8. A decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 2nd February, 2016

passed by the District & Sessions Judge, District Judge, Family Court,

Sonipat, Haryana has been handed over in Court today. The same is taken

on record.

9. It would be pertinent to note the decision of the Supreme Court in

Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported as (2012) 10 SCC 303,

wherein the Supreme Court has held that even non-compoundable offences

can be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the

offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant. The Supreme Court

in paragraph 58 of the said report has held as follows:-

"58. ....However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of

matrimony, particularly Crl.M.C. No.1265/2015 Page 4 of 9 relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated."

10. The Supreme Court further affirming the afore-stated proposition in

Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2014) 6

SCC 466 has in paragraph 29 of the said report 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."

11. Further, with specific reference to settlement in cases of matrimonial

disputes with regard to the afore-stated proposition, the Supreme Court in

Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr. reported as

(2013) 4 SCC 58, has in paragraphs 15 and 16 held as under:-

"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...."

12. Respondent No.1/complainant (wife), who is present in Court and has

been identified by the Investigating Officer i.e. SI Uday Singh, Police

Station- Bawana, Delhi, states that in pursuance to the settlement arrived at

between the parties to the union, she is no longer keen to proceed with the

subject FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom.

13. In terms of the decisions of the Supreme Court as afore-mentioned and

in view of the circumstances that since the dispute between the parties which

arose out of a matrimonial discord between petitioner no. 1 and respondent

no. 1 and resulted in the registration of the subject FIR, has been settled

amicably before the District & Sessions Judge, District Judge, Family Court,

Sonipat, Haryana, without any undue influence, pressure or coercion; as the

parties have obtained decree of divorce by mutual consent on 2nd February,