Rani Bindra & Ors vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 861 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 4697/2015
                                  Date of Decision : February 05th, 2016
    RANI BINDRA & ORS
                                                               ..... Petitioner
                         Through:       Ms. Meenakshi Juneja, Advocate for
                                        petitioner No.1 to 8.


                         versus

    STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS
                                                               ..... Respondent
                         Through:       Mr. Satya Narayan, Additional Public
                                        Prosecutor for the State
                                        Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for
                                        respondent No. 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, Smt. Rani Bindra, Sh. Sunil Bindra, Smt.

Jyoti Gulati, Sh. Rajan Gulati, Smt. Deepa, Sh. Namish Sahni, Smt.

Ramesh Katyal and Sh. Sameer Katyal for quashing of FIR

No.679/2014 dated 23.06.2014, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and

Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act registered at Police Station Begum

Pur on the basis of the mediation report of the Delhi Mediation

Centre, Rohini District Courts, Delhi between the petitioner no.1 and

respondent Nos.2 & 3, namely, Smt. Pinki Bindra and Sh. Gaurav

Bindra, respectively on 27.01.2015.

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 respondent no.3 and respondent no.2 was solemnized on

29.04.2013 according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the

marriage, the in-laws of the complainant/respondent no.2 started

abusing the complainant and her family members in filthy and vulgar

language. They even went to the extent of abusing and slapping the

complainant on slightest pretext. The in-laws of the complainant also

pressed her parents to buy a plot of land for their son. On 18.11.2013,

even after knowing about the pregnancy of the complainant, the

mother-in-law and the father-in-law of the respondent no.2 slapped

her and manhandled her. All the jewellery items of the complainant

are lying with her mother-in-law. With a view to throw out the

complainant of the matrimonial house, her in-laws disconnected the

electricity and threatened to dispossess her from the house. On the

complaint file by the respondent no.2, the FIR in question was

registered.

In the present case, the petitioners were granted bail. The

respondent no.2 had also filed complaint under Section 12 of the

D.V.Act. The petitioner no.1 had filed a complaint case under Section

156(3) Cr.P.C. and a suit for recovery of possession, damages/mesne

profits for illegal use and occupation against the respondent nos. 2 &

3. The matter was referred to the mediation cell where the parties

arrived at an amicable settlement.

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

dispute between the parties, i.e. namely petitioner no.1 and respondent

nos. 2 & 3, has been amicably resolved. As per the mediation report,

it has been agreed between the parties that respondent nos. 2 & 3 who

are already residing in the rented accommodation in Narela area, shall

further be residing in the same accommodation and that the rent for

the same shall be paid by petitioner no.2 for as long as respondent

nos. 2 & 3 shall choose to reside in the said rented accommodation. It

is further agreed between the parties that one portion from property

bearing no.188-89, Ground Floor, Pocket-26, Sector-24, Rohini,

Delhi-110085 shall be sold by petitioner no.1 as being the lawful

owner within two years form the date of settlement and with the

whole consideration amount received from such sale, two properties

having the similar status shall be purchased in the area of Narela. It is

further agreed that however, in case the need arises to extend the time

from two years any further time, the same shall be done with the

consent of both the parties. It is also agreed that one property shall be

bought exclusively in the name of petitioner no.1, whereas the second

property shall be bought jointly in the name of petitioner no.1 and

respondent no.3. It is also agreed that the property bought jointly in

the name of petitioner no.1 and respondent no.3 shall be exclusively

used by respondent nos. 2 & 3 for residing purposes in the future. It is

however also agreed that respondent nos. 2 & 3 shall not have any

powers to sell the property, jointly owned by respondent no. 3 and

petitioner no.1, during the lifetime of petitioner no.1 or her husband

i.e. petitioner no.2 and that after the death of both of them the

property would be transferred in the name of respondent no.3 and that

respondent no.3 shall have all the rights to deal with the property as

an owner in future and other family members of the petitioner no.1

shall have no right, title or interest in that property in any manner

whatsoever. It is further agreed that after getting the property in the

name of respondent no.3, respondent nos. 2 & 3 shall not claim

anything in future from the estate of petitioner no.1 or her family in

any manner whatsoever. It has been mutually agreed that respondent

nos. 2 & 3 undertake to vacate the ground floor of the suit property on

or before 11.02.2015 and keys of the said portion shall be handed over

to petitioner no.1 at the time of withdrawal of the present suit before

Ld. Referral Court. It is also agreed between the parties that the

complaint under Section 12 D.V.Act shall be withdrawn by

respondent no.2 from the court concerned on or before 26.03.2015. It

is also agreed between the parties that petitioner no.1 shall also

withdraw her complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. from the Court

concerned on or before 11.02.2015. It is further agreed between the

parties that respondent no.2 shall fully co-operate with respondent

no.3, petitioner no.1 and other family members in getting the FIR in

question quashed from this Court by giving a favourable statement in

this case and by signing all the relevant documents for this purpose. It

is further agreed between the parties that in view of this settlement,

any complaint or cross complaint which is pending or within the

knowledge of either party shall not be pursued by them any further.

Respondent Nos.2 & 3 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid

settlement and of their affidavits dated 29.07.2015 supporting this

petition. In the affidavits, the respondent nos.2 & 3 have stated that

they have 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 agreed 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 offences under Section 498A IPC &

Section 4 of the dowry Prohibition Act are non-compoundable

offences, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR under

these sections, 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.679/2014

dated 23.06.2014, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and Section 4

Dowry Prohibition Act registered at Police Station Begum Pur 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