Kuldeep Singh @ Kuldeep Bhati & Ors vs State ( Nct Of Delhi) & Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 860 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 4928/2015
                                  Date of Decision : February 05th, 2016
    KULDEEP SINGH @ KULDEEP BHATI & ORS
                                                             ..... Petitioner
                         Through:       Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Advocate


                         versus

    STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
                                                               ..... Respondent
                         Through:       Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public
                                        Prosecutor for the State
                                        Mr. Navvneet Patial, Advocate

           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. Kuldeep Singh @ Kuldeep Bhati, Sh.

Jitender Pal Singh @ Jagdish Singh, Smt. Savitra @ Dhanyo Devi,

Sh. Sushil Bhati, Smt. Archana and Smt. Sheetal Chauhan @ Sita for

quashing of FIR No.278/2012 dated 22.09.2012, under Sections

498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Badarpur on the basis of

the compromise deed executed between the petitioner no.1 and

respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Geeta Bhati on 03.06.2015.

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 SI Dhananjay Kumar.

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

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

08.12.2004 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. On 09.12.2004,

the respondent no.2/complainant reached her matrimonial home. The

mother-in-law snatched the amount of Rs. 8,000 from her which was

given to her in munh dikhai. The in-laws of the complainant were

unsatisfied with the amount of dowry. On 25.01.2005, the

complainant had fallen ill but no one took her to the doctor and

instead started beating her, thus she called her brother on 14.02.2005,

who took her to the doctor. On 30.03.2005, the complainant went

back to her matrimonial home. On 10.04.2005, the husband of the

complainant told her that he does not want the motorcycle which her

father had given to him in dowry, rather he wants CBZ model bike.

The husband of the complainant used to come home after consuming

liquor and used to beat her. The mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the

complainant also used to beat her up along with her husband. On

11.11.2005, the complainant gave birth to a female child due to which

she was harassed even more. The father-in-law, mother-in-law,

brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant used to beat her

up and used to keep her locked in a room without any food. On

08.06.2007, the husband and the in-laws of the complainant in a pre-

planned manner started beating her with sticks and the mother-in-law

also tried to kill the daughter of the complainant. Thereafter, the

complainant went to her parental home and since then she has been

residing there. On, 10.07.2007, she made a complaint in CAW Cell,

Delhi, where the petitioners apologized to her and took her back. On

30.01.2008, the petitioners abused and beat respondent no.2 and threw

her out from the matrimonial home.

On the basis of the said complaint, the FIR in question was

registered against the petitioners. Respondent no.2 filed a petition

under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and an application under Section 12 of

the D.V. Act, which were later on withdrawn by her. During the

course of the trial of the aforesaid cases and FIR in question, 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 with the

intervention of friends/relatives and associates. As per the said

compromise deed, it is agreed between the parties that respondent

no.2 has settled all her disputes/claim etc. past, present and future

alimony etc. It is also agreed between the parties that a sum of

Rs.4,00,000/- on 02.06.2015, by cash shall be paid by petitioner no.1

to respondent no.2 for the purpose of FDR in the favour of both the

children namely Sonam Bhati and Soni Bhati. It is further agreed that

petitioner no.1 or his family members shall not harass respondent no.2

or her children in future. It is also agreed that the entire property

which is in the name of petitioner no.1 will not be sold to any person /

other party without the consent of the respondent no.2. It is further

agreed between the parties that with this settlement there shall remain

no dispute, difference, litigation, claim or counter claim between the

parties and that the parties shall take necessary steps and action to

implement this in letter and spirit. Respondent No.2 affirms the

contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated

30.10.2015 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 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.278/2012

dated 22.09.2012, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at

Police Station Badarpur and the proceedings emanating therefrom are

quashed against the petitioners.

15. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE FEBRUARY 05, 2016 dd