Rajeev Jindal @ Rajiv Kumar Zindal vs State & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 875 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 4973/2015
                                  Date of Decision : February 05th, 2016
    RAJEEV JINDAL @ RAJIV KUMAR ZINDAL ..... Petitioner
                  Through  Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv.

                         versus

    STATE & ORS                                           ..... Respondents
                         Through        Mr. Arun Kr. Sharma, APP for State
                                        Mr. Charan Singh, Adv. for R-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 petitioner, namely, Sh. Rajeev Jindal @ Rajiv Kumar Zindal

for quashing of FIR No.18/2004 dated 22.01.2004, under Sections

498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station M.S. Park on the basis

of the mediation report of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkadooma

Courts, Delhi arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No.2,

namely, Smt. Sarita Rani on 02.09.2013.

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 Jagdish Prasad.

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

between petitioner and respondent no.2 was solemnized on

24.01.2003 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The

complainant/respondent no.2 reached her matrimonial home on

25.01.2003 when the mother-in-law of the complainant started

taunting her by saying that they joined relationship with beggars. The

husband of the complainant also said that he was planning to run

away from the marriage. After that the mother-in-law of the

complainant scratched the face of the complainant and her husband

held her hair tightly and continuously slapped her on the face. When

next day the brother of the complainant came to meet the

complainant, the husband and the mother-in-law insulted him badly.

After that the complainant was beaten up by her husband and her

mother-in-law on regular basis. The husband of the complainant is a

habitual drinker and used to say to the complainant that he already has

a criminal case of murder against him. The friend of the mother-in-

law of the complainant was also involved in instigating and beating

the complainant with her husband and mother-in-law. On 07.02.2003,

when the parents of the complainant came to visit her, the husband of

the complainant slapped her father and her mother-in-law started

abusing her father. The father of the complainant made several

complaints on which the husband of the complainant on 12.03.2003

came to her parental home and beat the father of the complainant. On

13.03.2003, after attending the proceedings of CAW Cell, when the

complainant was returning home, her husband took her and she was

beaten up very badly. The mother-in-law of the complainant even

tried to put the complainant on fire.

The respondent no.2 had filed maintenance petition under

Section 125 Cr.P.C. and a written complaint to the CAW Cell, Delhi

against the petitioner and his family members. On the basis of the said

complaint, the FIR in question was registered. During the trial of the

case, 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

said report, it has been agreed between the parties that they shall take

divorce by way of mutual consent. It is further agreed that petitioner

shall pay a total sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to respondent no. 2 towards full

and final settlement of all her claims arising out of their marriage

which includes maintenance (past, present and future), permanent

alimony, dowry articles, jewellery, stridhan etc. It has been further

agreed between the parties that Rs. 50,000/- shall be payable by the

petitioner to the respondent no.2 at the time of recording of the

statements of the parties in the first motion petition, which shall be

filed within September 2013. It is further agreed that Rs. 50,000/-

shall be paid, by the petitioner to respondent no.2, at the time of

recording of the statements of the parties in the second motion which

shall be filed after the expiry of statutory period of six months. It has

further been agreed that the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be

paid to the respondent no.2 by the petitioner before this Court at the

time of quashing of the FIR in question. It is also agreed that the

quashing petition shall be filed within one month after passing of

decree of divorce by way of mutual consent. It is further agreed that

respondent no.2 shall withdraw all her pending execution petitions

within 15 days after recording of statements of the parties in first

motion. It has been agreed that apart from the cases mentioned above,

they have not filed any other case/complaint/legal proceedings against

each other and that in case any such case/complaint/legal proceedings

is found pending between them arising out of their marriage, the same

shall be withdrawn by the concerned party in terms of this settlement.

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

of her affidavit dated 01.10.2015 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 petitioner

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 petitioner and has settled all the disputes with

him. 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 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.18/2004 dated

22.01.2004, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police

Station M.S. Park and the proceedings emanating therefrom are

quashed against the petitioner.

15. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

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