Neeraj Sood & Ors vs State Of Delhi & Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 1311 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 4551/2015
                                  Date of Decision : February 19th, 2016
    NEERAJ SOOD & ORS                                       ..... Petitioner
                 Through:               Mr. Raj Kumar Chandiwal, Advocate
                                        with petitioner in person.

                         versus

    STATE OF DELHI & ANR                                    ..... Respondent
                 Through:               Mr. G.M. Farooqui, Additional Public
                                        Prosecutor for the State with ASI Shri
                                        Ram, Police Station Hari Nagar,
                                        Delhi
                                        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 petitioners, namely, Neeraj Sood, Tarsem Lal Sood and Sneh

Sood for quashing of FIR No.258/2010 dated 10.07.2010, under

Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Hari Nagar on

the basis of the mediation report of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis

Hazari Courts, Delhi arrived at between petitioner no.1 and

respondent No.2, namely, Sanju Rani Kukreja on 06.04.2015.

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 ASI Shri Ram.

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

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

30.03.2006 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the

marriage, the mother-in-law of the complainant took all her jewellery.

Despite several demands, the complainant was not given back her

jewellery, istridhan etc. The mother-in-law and the father-in-law of

the complainant used to abet her husband to torture her and cause

physical and mental cruelty upon her to put pressure on the parents of

the complainant. The husband of the complainant used to give

beatings to her. In March 2007, the husband, mother-in-law and the

father-in-law of the complainant gave her beating on her back. The

husband of the complainant was a habitual drinker and was also

involved in gambling. The husband of the complainant also had illicit

relation with several other women. On 10.09.2007, when the

complainant was going to her school, the husband of the complainant

got her hit by one of his associates due to which she sustained severe

injuries. On 13.05.2008, the mother-in-law and the father-in-law of

the complainant hit her with a chair. The sister-in-law of the

complainant also used to abuse her. On the occasion of Karva Chauth,

the father-in-law of the complainant gave kicks to the complainant in

her abdomen. On 30.01.2010, the in-laws of the complainant gave her

beatings and threw her out of the matrimonial home along with her

children. All the istridhan etc. of the complainant are still in the

custody of the in-laws of the complainant.

Thereafter, respondent no.2 filed a complaint in the CAW Cell,

Delhi on the basis of which the FIR in question was lodged against

the accused persons/petitioners and the charge sheet was filed. 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

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

shall take divorce by way of mutual consent. It has also been agreed

that the joint petition for dissolution of marriage shall be filed within

15 days from the date of said report and the second motion under

Section 13 B (2) HMA shall be filed after the expiry of the statutory

period of 6 months. It has further been agreed that the petitioner no.1

shall give a total sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to respondent no.2 towards full

and final settlement of the entire claim of maintenance/ istridhan as

well as permanent alimony, maintenance of children and all the other

claims and rights arising out of the marriage between the parties. It

has also been agreed that a petition shall be filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C. by the petitioners for quashing of the FIR in question and the

respondent no.2 shall cooperate with the petitioners and shall file her

affidavit for the quashing of the FIR in question. It has also been

agreed that a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. shall also be filed for

the quashing of the FIR No. 204/2012 under Section 308/342/34 IPC,

PS Uttam Nagar and the father of the respondent no.2 and Sh. Vipin

Kukreja shall cooperate with the petitioner no.1 herein in quashing of

the same. It has also been agreed that a petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C. shall also be filed for the quashing of the FIR No. 337/2012

under Section 452/308/323/34 IPC, PS Uttam Nagar by Sanju, Om

Prakash and Vipin and the petitioner no.1 and his father shall

cooperate with the respondent no.2 herein in quashing of the same. It

has also been agreed that the petition for quashing of the FIRs shall be

filed by both the parties within one month from the date of disposal of

the petition under Section 13 B (2) HMA. It has also been agreed that

the respondent no.2 shall withdraw the case under Section 12 D.V.Act

as well as under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and under Section 9 HMA from

the Courts concerned within 15 days of the date of the said report or

on the date next fixed for hearing. Similarly, the petitioner no.1

agreed to withdraw the case under Section 13 HMA from the Court

concerned within 15 days from the said report. It has also been agreed

that the custody of both the children shall remain with the respondent

no.2. It has also been agreed that the respondent no.2 and her family

members shall not visit the residence of the petitioner no.1 and his

family members and shall not interfere in the life of the petitioner

no.1 and vice versa. 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 affirmed 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.258/2010

dated 10.07.2010, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at

Police Station Hari Nagar 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