Sameer Saxena & Ors vs The State & Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 873 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 4934/2015
                                  Date of Decision : February 05th, 2016
    SAMEER SAXENA & ORS
                                                              ..... Petitioner
                         Through:       Mr. Ranvir Singh, Advocate


                         versus

    THE STATE & ANR
                                                               ..... Respondent
                         Through:        Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public
                                        Prosecutor for the State
                                        Mr. K.K. Vaid, 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, Sh. Sameer Saxena, Smt. Mala Saxena @

Mala Devi, Sh. Dinesh Manuja and Smt. Meenal Manuja for quashing

of FIR No.412/2012 dated 24.12.2012, under Sections 498A/34 IPC

& Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act registered at Police Station

Shahdara on the basis of the compromise deed between petitioner

no.1 and respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Manpreet @ Manpreet Kaur

on 09.12.2014.

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

05.07.2009. After the marriage, petitioner no.1 kept respondent no.2

in a tenanted accommodation at 15/14 Krishna Nagar, Delhi. After

about 1 year of the marriage respondent no.2's mother-in-law, sister-

in-law and brother-in-law took the respondent no.2 to their home at

Bhikam Singh Colony, Vishwas Nagar. A few days after moving into

her matrimonial home, respondent no.2 experienced a change in

attitude of her husband and her in-laws. A demand of Rs. 5 Lacs in

cash was also made by the in-laws of respondent no.2, so that she

could purchase a Tempo and upon refusal by the respondent no.2, she

was administered several beatings by her husband in unison with his

family members. On 27.07.2010, petitioner no.1 along with his

mother, sister & brother-in-law beat respondent no.2 mercilessly after

consuming liquor. In April 2011, petitioner no.2, after consuming

liquor pushed respondent no.2 down the stairs so as to terminate

respondent no.2's pregnancy and then turned her out of the house. On

22.07.2011, respondent no.2 gave birth to a son, the expenses of

which had to be borne by the parents of respondent no.2. After

hearing the news of the childbirth, the husband and in-laws of

respondent no.2 took her back to her matrimonial home following

which the physical torture for dowry started again. Respondent no.2

was not supplied a proper diet and the in-laws started beating her

daily. On 21.09.2011, the in-laws of the complainant again gave her

beatings and her mother-in-law made her and her newly born child bit

by a dog and threw her out of the house. On the same day, the

husband of the complainant and her in-laws entered her parental home

and started beating and abusing her and her parents. The husband of

the complainant filed a divorce case at Karkadooma Court after

leveling false allegations against her and asked to either bring Rs. 5

lacs from her father or else he shall enter into a second marriage.

The petitioner no.1 filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)

(i-a) & (i-b) H.M.A. against respondent no.2 at Karkadooma Courts

Delhi, which was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn. Respondent

no.2 filed a complaint to the Police Commissioner, Delhi and CAW

Cell, Delhi against the petitioners. On the basis of the said complaint

the FIR in question was registered. After completion of the

investigation in the FIR in question, the I.O. filed the charge sheet.

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 family members, common friends and well-wishers,

the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 decided to resolve all their

disputes amicably and get their marriage dissolved by filing a petition

for divorce by mutual consent before the concerned Court. As per the

terms of the compromise deed, it has been agreed between the parties,

i.e. namely petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2, that petitioner no.1

shall give a total sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to respondent no.2 in five

installments as full and final settlement amount to the towards her

dowry articles/stridhan, maintenance and permanent alimony for past,

present and future for herself and their minor son. It is agreed that out

of the total amount of settlement, Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid in cash to

respondent no.2 in the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C and

Rs.50,000/- in cash to respondent no.2 at the time of withdrawal of

the aforesaid complaint under Section 12 of the D.V. Act on its date

fixed i.e. 09.12.2014. It is further agreed that a sum of Rs. 25,000/-

each in cash shall be paid by petitioner no.1 to respondent no.2 at the

time of recording of the joint statement in the divorce petition by way

of mutual consent under Section 13-B(1) of H.M.A. and at the time of

recording of the joint statement in the divorce petition by way of

mutual consent under Section 13-B(2) of H.M.A. before the Court

concerned and that the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be payable by the

petitioner no.1 to the respondent no.2 at the time of quashing of the

FIR in question before this Court. It is further agreed between the

parties that petitioner no.1 shall approach this Court for quashing of

the FIR in question within a period of 30 days after obtaining the

decree of divorce. It is also agreed that none of the parties shall file

any kind of cases or complaint against each other or their relatives

related to their aforesaid marriage in future. It is also agreed that the

custody of the minor son namely master Ansh shall remain with

respondent no.2 who will maintain him and petitioner no.1 shall never

claim custody or visitation rights. It is agreed between the parties that

respondent no.2 shall not have any right to claim maintenance etc. or

any kind of right in property for herself or their minor son.

Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of the aforesaid settlement and

of her affidavit dated 21.11.2015 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 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.412/2012

dated 24.12.2012, under Sections 498A/34 IPC & Section 4 Dowry

Prohibition Act registered at Police Station Shahdara 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