Jitin Chugh & Ors vs State And Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 1303 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 5059/2015
                             Date of Decision : February 19th, 2016
    JITIN CHUGH & ORS                                  ..... Petitioner
                  Through:          Mr. N.K. Kapoor, Advocate
                  versus
    STATE AND ANR                                      ..... Respondent
                  Through:          Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, Additional
                                    Public Prosecutor for the State with
                                    ASI Tej Ram, Police Station
                                    Najafgarh, Delhi

           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. Jitin Chugh, Sh. Prem Prakash Chugh,

Smt. Raj Rani and Smt. Geetika for quashing of FIR No.121/2011

dated 05.05.2011, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at

Police Station Rani Bagh on the basis of the Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) arrived at between the petitioner no.1 and

respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Preeti on 01.04.2015.

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 her counsel.

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

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

11.02.2010 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The accused

persons were not satisfied with the dowry articles given at the time of

marriage and the complainant was thus, harassed by the accused

persons for dowry after the marriage. The husband of the complainant

and his parents made it clear that until and unless their dowry

demands are met, the complainant will not be permitted to reside in

the matrimonial home. The parents-in-law of the complainant used to

instigate the husband of the complainant to give slaps to the

complainant on her face. The complainant was also beaten up

mercilessly many times by her in-laws and husband on non-

fulfillment of the demand of dowry. On 13.02.2010, the complainant

went with her husband to Shimla, where she was mentally tortured by

him. On 24.07.2010, when the accused persons came to know about

the pregnancy of the complainant, none of them were happy and

infact started beating her. One day, the husband of the complainant

demanded Rs. 50,000/- from her and when the complainant refused,

she was slapped by him and he even caught hold of her hair and

dragged her to the door of the house and warned her. On 31.07.2010,

the husband of the complainant gave a kick blow on her stomach and

after that the complainant became unconscious and she suffered an

abortion. The husband of the complainant grew suspicious of her.

Whenever, the complainant used to talk on her phone with her

parents, the husband of the complainant used to enquire from her and

thus told his parents that complainant is unchaste. Listening to this,

the father-in-law of the complainant slapped her, while her sister-in-

law pulled her hair and her husband gave blows to her. On

21.09.2010, the mother-in-law of the complainant left her at her

parental home.

Thereafter, the petitioner no.1 filed a petition under Section

13(1)(ia) HMA against the respondent no.2. Besides this, the

respondent no.2 filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the

petitioner no.1. Vide decree dated 27.11.2012, the marriage between

the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 was dissolved. Consequently,

the respondent no.2 preferred an appeal against the said judgment,

during the pendency of which, both 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

MOU, it is agreed that both parties shall withdraw all the allegations

against each other made in divorce petition as well as in FIR in

question and that petitioner no.1 shall have no objection if the appeal

F.A.O. No. 185/2013 filed by respondent no.2 in the concerned Court

is allowed/accepted by this Court. It is agreed that petitioner no.1

shall pay a sum of Rs. 6 Lakhs as full and final settlement (against

istridhan and dowry, maintenance towards past, present and future

qua this marriage and nothing shall remain due qua this marriage) to

respondent no.2. The schedule of payment of the above mentioned

settlement amount would be as laid out in the MOU. It is also agreed

that within 15 days from the date of setting aside of order of the

concerned Family Court, the parties shall file a Divorce Petition by

mutual consent before the competent Family Court. It is also agreed

that once the marriage is dissolved under Section 13B(1)(2) of the

HMA, the parties shall file a petition for quashing of the proceedings

before this Court in respect of the FIR in question and that the

respondent no.2 shall cooperate for the same. It is agreed that the

parties shall not file any case/complaint/petition etc. against each

other or their family members before any Court/Authority/Police in

future. It is also agreed that the parties would not have any kind of

communication or contact with each other, their friends and/or family

members. It is further agreed that in case of non-compliance on the

part of either party, the other party shall have the option of getting the

same executed through Court of law. Respondent No.2 affirmed the

contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated

03.12.2015 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 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 of FIR No.121/2011

dated 05.05.2011, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at

Police Station Rani Bagh and the proceedings emanating therefrom

are quashed against the petitioners.

15. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE FEBRUARY 19, 2016 dd