Damanpreet Singh & Ors vs State ( Nct Of Delhi ) & Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 1098 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 4624/2015
                                  Date of Decision : February 12th, 2016
    DAMANPREET SINGH & ORS                                   ..... Petitioner
                         Through:       Mr.G.B.Sewak, Adv.

                         versus

    STATE ( NCT OF DELHI ) & ANR
                                                               ..... Respondent
                         Through:       Mr.G.M.Farooqui, APP.

           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, namely, Sh. Damanpreet Singh, Sh. Ravinder

Singh, Smt. Daljeet Kaur and Sh. Amanpreet Singh for quashing of

FIR No.372/2011 dated 24.10.2011, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC

registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar on the basis of the

Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") arrived at between the

petitioner no.1 and respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Gurvinder Kaur on

30.03.2015.

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 SI, PS Tilak Nagar.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage

between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 was solemnized

on 18.10.2008 as per Sikh rites and ceremonies. The husband and the

in-laws of the complainant made her life hell and the complainant was

not able to live peacefully at her matrimonial home and they used to

cause mental torture and harassment to the complainant. On the very

first day after marriage, the complainant was made to remove all her

jewellery by her husband, mother-in-law and mami. The in-laws of

the complainant taunted her everyday that her parents did not give

them articles as per their expectations. On 20.10.2008, the

complainant went for her honeymoon, where her husband again

abused her badly. The complainant was not permitted to talk to

anyone. One day, the husband of the complainant dropped her at her

parental home to demand more dowry and on repeated calls by the

complainant also, he did not come to take her back. The brother-in-

law of the complainant, namely, Amanpreet Singh also used to harass

the complainant by demanding a diamond breslate. Later on, the

complainant became pregnant and her in-laws asked her to abort the

child as they did not have the expenses. When the complainant

refused to do the same, her in-laws completely ignored her and her

health. On 10.07.2010, the complainant gave birth to a female child

and she was thus tortured by her in-laws. On 08.10.2010, the parents

and other family elders of the complainant visited the office of her

father-in-law but the father-in-law of the complainant told them to

take their daughter away and not send her back until their dowry

demands including a Honda Accord car are met. One day, the mother-

in-law of the complainant forcefully pulled her hair and the husband

of the complainant gave her blows and kicks in the stomach. The

father-in-law of the complainant snatched her daughter and slapped

the complainant and hit her towards the wall. Thereafter, the parents

of the complainant made a complaint in the Tilak Nagar, PS after

which the complainant went with her parents as her in-law's refused

to take her with them. All the valuables and istridhan of the

complainant remained in the possession of her in-laws.

The respondent no.2 on 05.08.2011 lodged a complaint against

the petitioners in CAW Cell, Delhi and consequently, the FIR in

question was registered. The parties filed several other cases i.e.

divorce, Section 12 D.V.Act, Section 125 Cr.P.C., Section 25 GW

Act, Execution Petition, appeals, revision etc. against each other.

Thereafter, with the intervention of the elders and other respectable

persons of the society, the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 arrived

at an amicable settlement.

4. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the

dispute between the parties. As per the MOU, it has been agreed

between the parties that they shall file for a divorce by way of mutual

consent. It is agreed that petitioner no.1 shall pay a sum of

Rs.15,00,000/- to respondent no.2 towards full and final settlement of

all her claims regarding maintenance- past, present, future, istridhan,

jewellery, alimony, dowry articles, etc. in respect of their marriage.

That the settlement amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- would be paid in four

installments as specified in the MOU itself. It is agreed that

respondent no. 2 shall withdraw the cases under Section 125 Cr.P.C.,

Section 12 of D.V. Act, Section 25 GW Act and Criminal Revision

Petition(in this Court) filed by respondent no. 2 against the petitioner

no.1 and his family members. It is agreed that petitioner no.1 shall

withdraw the cases filed by him against respondent no.2 immediately

after respondent no.2 withdraws the cases filed by her against

petitioner no.1 and his family members. It is also agreed that

respondent no.2 shall give no-objection to the permanent release of

passport of petitioner no.1 deposited in the concerned Court. It is

agreed that petitioner no.1 has already deposited the dowry articles as

per the admitted list in Police Station Tilak Nagar in compliance of

order dated 28.09.2012 passed by the Court of Ms. Colette Rashmi

Kujur, MM (Mahila Court-02) West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and the

respondent no. 2 shall be at the liberty to receive the same. It is agreed

that petitioner no.1 shall give no-objection to the release of the

aforesaid articles, if required. It is further agreed that the permanent

custody of the daughter named Sifatpreet Kaur shall remain with the

petitioner no.1 and that respondent no.2 shall not have any visitation

rights and respondent no.2 shall never initiate any legal proceedings

in any Court of law/Authority/ Forum to enforce any such right(s) in

this regard. It is also agreed that the petitioner no.1 shall return

whatever original documents i.e. testimonials etc., of respondent no.2

which are available with him. It is agreed that after the aforesaid

settlement, both parties shall be left with no claims whatsoever

against each other of any nature and they shall be free to live their

lives independently without any interference of each other. It is also

agreed that the parties shall not claim or demand any share, right, title

or interest in each other's any other movable or immovable properties

owned or to be owned by them or their family member in future. It is

further agreed that the parties have mutually resolved all their issues

and undertake not to initiate/file any disputes/complaints/claims/cases

etc. before any Court/Forum/Authority etc. against each other or their

family members, relatives, etc. ever. Respondent No.2 affirms the

contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated

02.11.2015 supporting this petition. In the affidavit, the respondent

no.2 has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is

quashed. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through

mutual consent. Now no dispute with 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.

5. 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."

6. 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.

7. The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised to

prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

The respondent no.2 agrees to the quashing of the FIR in question

without any threat or coercion or undue influence and has stated that

the matter has been settled out of her own free will. As the matter has

been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be an

extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal proceedings

between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the considered

opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section

482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the

ends of justice.

8. 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.

9. It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram

Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case of

Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009

has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be

exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the

Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice

or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is

not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.

10. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced

that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not

affect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of

such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace

and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them.

In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and

energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in

entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is

compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S.

Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675

the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of

Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not

compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482

Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of

securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary,

section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of

quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon'ble Apex Court justified the

exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the

proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts

and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non-

compoundable.

In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that

notwithstanding the fact the offence under Section 498A IPC is a non-

compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing

the FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the

facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of statement

made by the respondent No.2 and the compromise arrived at between

the parties, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and

proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.

14. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.372/2011

dated 24.10.2011, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at

Police Station Tilak Nagar the proceedings emanating therefrom are

quashed against the petitioners.

15. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE FEBRUARY 12, 2016 dd