Raghav vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 1102 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 5456/2014
                                  Date of Decision : February 12th, 2016
    RAGHAV
                                                               ..... Petitioner
                         Through:       Ms. Protima Parihar, Advocate


                         versus

    STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
                                                               ..... Respondent
                         Through:       Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, Additional
                                        Public Prosecutor for the State
                                        Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, Advocate for
                                        respondent No. 2.

           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 petitioner, namely, Sh. Raghav for quashing of FIR

No.489/2009 dated 02.10.2009, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC

registered at Police Station Mandawli-Fazad Pur on the basis of the

mediation report of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkadooma Courts,

Delhi arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No.2, namely,

Smt. Anju on 23.10.2010.

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 Neeraj Kumar.

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

the respondent no.2 and the petitioner was solemnized on 02.12.2007

according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the marriage the in-

laws of the complainant started pressurizing her for more dowry and

asked her to bring one car and only then she could reside in the

matrimonial house. When the complainant informed her parents about

the same, her parents also were treated very badly by her in-laws.

After that, the complainant was beaten up by her in-laws almost daily

and she was not given any food. The brother of the complainant came

to her house to meet her and he also was beaten up very badly by her

in-laws. Thereafter, the complainant along with her parents and her

brother started residing at Karnal. Later on, the complainant made a

complaint to the CAW Cell, Karnal. There, the matter got settled and

the complainant started residing with her husband and in-laws. The

in-laws of the complainant on the pretext of starting a new business

started demanding Rs. 3 lakhs from her parents and even demanded a

flat. The in-laws of the complainant again started beating her and one

day the husband and the in-laws of the complainant threw her out of

her matrimonial house.

Thereafter, the FIR in question was registered by the

respondent no.2/complainant against the petitioner. Later on, the

matter got compromised between the respondent no.2 and the

petitioner.

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

dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the

mediation report, it has been agreed between the parties that they shall

file for a divorce by way of mutual consent. It is agreed that the

petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- 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 including any claim granted by any other

Court in favour of respondent no.2. It is further agreed that the

settlement amount of Rs.4,00,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner by

way of demand draft to respondent no.2 in two installments. It is

further agreed that till recording of the second motion, the execution

petition filed by respondent no.2 for the execution of the order under

Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is pending disposal before the Court of

Ms. Sunena Sharma, Ld. MM, KKD, Delhi be kept in abeyance and

the respondent no.2 shall not execute the same. It is further agreed

that respondent no.2 shall withdraw the said execution

petition/proceedings after the recording of the second motion and

getting the decree of divorce between the parties and will not claim

the amount in the said execution petition as matter is now finally

settled between the parties in terms of this settlement for full and final

settlement amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. It is further agreed between the

parties that after decree of divorce by way mutual consent i.e.

recording of statement in the second motion, the parties shall file

proceedings before this Court for quashing of FIR in question and

both parties shall appear at their own expenses in the proceedings for

quashing of the FIR in question. It is further agreed that respondent

no.2 shall help and cooperate in the quashing of the FIR in question

by giving her statement before this Court in accordance with law. It is

further agreed that the parties after getting divorce by way of mutual

consent, the petitioner shall withdraw his petition under Section 9 of

the H.M.A. for disposal at Chandigarh and in the meantime, it is

agreed that the proceedings of the said petition under Section 9 of the

H.M.A. be kept in abeyance. It is further agreed between the parties

that the proceedings in this case under Section 12 of D.V. Act be also

kept in abeyance till the recording of the second motion for the

dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent

and after such decree, respondent no.2 shall withdraw this case also

against the accused. It is agreed that both the parties have settled all

their disputes against each other arising out of the marriage and that it

is undertaken by both parties that if any other case or litigation

pending or filed by the parties against each other before any Authority

or Court that shall be deemed to be settled after the decree of divorce.

It is also agreed that after making the payment of the settlement

amount by petitioner to respondent no.2, nothing shall remain pending

towards each other and respondent no.2 shall not claim any right over

the property of the petitioner. It is also agreed that both parties shall

not file any case or complaint against each other after this present

settlement. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of the aforesaid

settlement. All the disputes and differences have been resolved

through mutual consent. 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.

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.489/2009

dated 02.10.2009, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at

Police Station Mandawli-Fazad Pur the proceedings emanating

therefrom are quashed against the petitioner.

15. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

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