Ram Kishore @ Vicky @ Rishi Kohli & ... vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 1111 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 3623/2015
                                  Date of Decision : February 12th, 2016
    RAM KISHORE @ VICKY @ RISHI KOHLI & ORS..... Petitioner
                         Through:       Mr.Vikas Padora, Adv.

                         versus

    STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR             ..... Respondent
                  Through: Mr.G.M.Farooqui, APP.
                            Mr.P.K.Anand, Adv. for R-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 petitioners, namely, Ram Kishore @ Vicky @ Rishi Kohli,

Sumit Kohli, Sunita Kohli and Ms. Neeru Gupta, for quashing of FIR

No.44/2009 dated 27.02.2009, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC

registered at Police Station Pahar Ganj on the basis of the compromise

arrived at between petitioner no.1 and respondent No.2, namely, Smt.

Poonam Kohli as provided in their joint statement recorded on

24.11.2012 before the learned MM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

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 her counsel.

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

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

26.05.2002 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the

marriage, the in-laws and the husband of the complainant/respondent

no.2 started taunting her for bringing less dowry and started harassing,

torturing and maltreating her. After the delivery of the first child of

the complainant, she was not treated properly and all her hospital

expenses were borne by her parents and her in-laws did not provide

her with proper care and food. At the Namkaran ceremony, the in-

laws of the complainant demanded Rs. 1 lacs from the parents of the

complainant and when they refused, the parents of the complainant

were insulted. On the same day, the complainant was given beatings

by her in-laws and her child was snatched away from her. On the

same day i.e. 26.09.2003, the parents of the complainant made a

complaint and the husband of the complainant and her brother-in-law

were arrested under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. vide DD No. 38 dated

26.09.2003. Later on, they were released on bail. After the same, the

complainant was not permitted in her matrimonial home, thus she

went to her parental home. Then, the complainant made a complaint

in the CAW Cell, Delhi on 09.10.2003. They pleaded their guilt and

gave in writing the torture they gave to the complainant. Then, the

complainant started residing at DP-16, Pitampura, Delhi but the

torture by her in-laws and her husband did not come to an end. On

22.11.2007, the complainant was again given beatings by her brother-

in-law and her husband with dandas and rods and they also tried to

push her from the balcony and strangulated her neck. The

complainant received injuries on her skull and other parts of the body

due to which she was hospitalized for treatment. The sister-in-law of

the complainant kept the complainant forcefully locked in a house so

that the complainant could not file a complaint. The parents of the

complainant came to know about the incident on 25.11.2007 and thus

they took the complainant along with them.

Thereafter, the FIR in question was lodged against the accused

persons/petitioner. Later on, the parties arrived at an amicable

settlement.

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

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

joint statements of the parties, it has been agreed between the parties,

that they shall take divorce by way of mutual consent. It has further

been agreed that the petitioner no.1 shall give a total sum of Rs. 3.75

lakhs to respondent no.2 towards full and final settlement of the entire

claim of maintenance/ istridhan as well as permanent alimony of the

respondent no.2. It has also been agreed that the custody of the minor

children shall remain with the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2

shall not file any case to claim custody of the children. The petitioner

no.1 further agreed to withdraw his petition pending in the Court

concerned in Crl. M.C. 518/2010. Both the parties agreed to withdraw

any other cases/complaints etc. filed against each other and they also

agreed to not file any case/complaint etc. against each other in future.

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 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.44/2009 dated

27.02.2009, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police

Station Pahar Ganj and the proceedings emanating therefrom are

quashed against the petitioners.

15. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

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