R K Nautiyal vs The State & Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 1104 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 5042/2015
                                  Date of Decision : February 12th, 2016
    R K NAUTIYAL                                         ..... Petitioner
                         Through        Mr.S.C. Tomar, Adv.

                         versus

    THE STATE & ANR                                      ..... Respondents
                  Through               Mr.Vinod Diwakar, APP for the State
                                        with SI Mousam Ghani, PS Mayur
                                        Vihar.
                                        Respondent No.2 in person.

           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. R. K. Nautiyal for quashing of FIR

No.16/2004 dated 24.01.2004, under Sections 406/498A IPC

registered at Police Station Mayur Vihar on the basis of the mediation

report of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkadooma Courts, New Delhi

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

Ms.Chandra Kala Nautiyal on 25.05.2010.

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 Mousam Ghani.

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

between the petitioner and respondent no.2 was solemnized on

09.12.1998 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After marriage,

the respondent no.2/complainant got to know that her husband does

gambling. The complainant advised him to leave the same but instead

her husband gave her beatings. When the complainant complained

about the same to her in-laws, they also started beating her. The

complainant later gave birth to a female child, on which she was

tortured by her in-laws and they also started demanding dowry from

her. The in-laws of the complainant also used to beat the complainant

demanding the land of her father for building a house on it or for

bringing more money from her parents. The father of the complainant

build a one room set after which the mother-in-law and the sister-in-

law of the complainant started living in it. Thereafter, they sold the

said house and disappeared. The husband of the complainant sold the

entire stridhan of the complainant and at one night, he started beating

her. On 06.03.2003, the complainant reached the home of her

maternal uncle and suggested the petitioner no.1 to compromise the

matter but he did not come.

The complainant lodged a complaint on which the FIR in

question was registered against the petitioner on account of cruelty.

The charge sheet has also been filed by the I.O. Later on the parties

settled their disputes with each other and started residing together.

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

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

mediation report, the parties have settled all their disputes and have

agreed to reside together jointly. It is agreed between the parties that

the petitioner is willing to keep his daughter and wife peacefully to

which respondent no.2 has also agreed. It is agreed between the

parties that the petitioner is a drug addict for which he shall seek

rehabilitative therapy and respondent no.2 shall support him through

this. It is further agreed between the parties that they shall open a joint

account and on the pay day at the office of the petitioner, respondent

no.2 shall accompany the petitioner to his office and will receive the

cheque from petitioner-husband after getting it from the office. It is

also agreed that the petitioner shall issue a postdated cheque, prior to

getting the salary cheque from his employer, in the name of his wife.

It is further agreed between the parties that if it is possible as per the

rules of the Central Government if the wife is entitled to get the salary

from the employer of the petitioner and the petitioner authorizes

respondent no.2 to receive his salary from his employer, then the

petitioner shall give an authority letter to his wife in this regard and he

will write to the authorities concerned to pay his salary to his wife. It

is also agreed that respondent no.2 shall give the petitioner Rs.2000/-

per month as pocket expenses and other expenses shall be borne by

respondent no.2. It is agreed that respondent no.2 shall cooperate in

getting the FIR in question quashed on satisfactory and peaceful

completion of 1 year from the date of this agreement. It is also agreed

that the loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- running over the petitioner shall be paid

by respondent no.2 to the concerned persons and for any kind of other

allowance the petitioner's wife shall have no liability. It is agreed

between the parties that the petitioner undertakes not to harass or

torture his wife or daughter in future for any kind of illegal demands,

otherwise, the wife shall be entitled to recover her arrears of

maintenance from the date of filing of the application. It is further

agreed that if the petitioner does not pay the agreed amount to

respondent no.2 or defaults in following the terms of this agreement in

future, then the respondent no.2 shall be at liberty to get all her

claims. It is also agreed that if this Court were to issue some

directions to the employer of the petitioner, then both parties shall

jointly request to send some directions to the Geological Survey of

India, Faridabad, and the employer of the petitioner will then make a

request before this Court. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of the

aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 04.12.2015 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 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.16/2004 dated

24.01.2004, under Sections 406/498A IPC registered at Police Station

Mayur Vihar the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed

against the petitioner.

15. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

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