Chiranjeev Singh Lamba & Ors vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 1763 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 5163/2015
                       Date of Decision : March 04th, 2016
    CHIRANJEEV SINGH LAMBA & ORS
                                                      ..... Petitioner
                  Through: Mr. B.B. Sharma, Advocate


                         versus

    STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR
                                                           ..... Respondent
                         Through:   Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public
                                    Prosecutor for the State with ASI
                                    Shyam Sunder, Police Station
                                    Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi.
                                    Ms. Amandeep Kaur, 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, Chiranjeev Singh Lamba, Smt. Charanjeet

Kaur, Palvinder Singh Lamba and Gurmeet Kaur for quashing of FIR

No.317/2012 dated 13.10.2012, under Sections 498A/323/34 IPC

registered at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar on the basis of the

compromise deed arrived at between petitioner nos.1 to 3 and

respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Amanpreet Kaur on 22.09.2014.

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 ASI Shyam Sunder.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that on 28.04.2012 at

about 2 pm, the petitioner no.1 came to the room of complainant and

abused her. He even snatched the daughter of the complainant-Mannat

from her and the complainant was also thrown by petitioner no.1 from

the room and he locked the room. The complainant was also asked by

the petitioner no.1 to leave the matrimonial house. The petitioner no.1

caught hold of the hair of the complainant and hit her with the wall of

the room and as a result, the head of the complainant struck against

the wall and she received injuries on her head. The, the petitioner no.4

caught hold of the hands of the complainant and petitioner no.1 gave

her beatings with legs and blows. The petitioner no.2 was also present

there and started abusing and curing the complainant and also gave

her beatings. Ultimately, the complainant became unconscious. The

complainant after gaining conscious called up the police who took her

to the hospital.

Thereafter, the complainant/respondent no.2 lodged the FIR in

question against the petitioners. Later on, the parties arrived at an

amicable settlement and compromised all their disputes.

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

dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the

compromise deed, the petitioners shall let the respondent no.2 live

peacefully in the property bearing No. 11/4, first floor, Indra Vikas

Colony, Near Nirankari Colony, Delhi without any fear, cruelty,

domestic violence etc. and none of the members of the petitioners

shall cause any hindrance to the free movement/ living of the

respondent no.2 in the said property and/or any other property

purchased in future by petitioners. The petitioner nos. 1 to 3 and the

respondent no.2 shall have equal share i.e. 1/3rd share in the said

property till the lifetime of petitioner no.2 and thereafter, the

petitioner nos. 1 & 3 and the respondent no.2 shall have equal right

i.e. 1/2nd each in the said property. It is also agreed that out of the two

shops at 862, Hazi Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, one shop will be of

petitioner no.3 and the other of petitioner no.1 and the respondent

no.2 and they are free to use/deal with the said shop independently

without any hindrance etc. by petitioner no.3 and petitioner no.2 in

case of sale of the said shops and the sale consideration shall be

equally divided between petitioner no.3 and petitioner no.1. The

respondent no.2 shall have equal share/right in the property acquired

by petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.1 shall have no individual right to

dispose off the property so acquired of his own and/or without the

permission of respondent no.2. The near and dear ones of respondent

no.2 shall have the right to visit the respondent no.2 at any time at the

place of her residence i.e. property bearing No. 11/4, first floor, Indra

Vikas Colony, Near Nirankari Colony, Delhi and the petitioners shall

cause no hindrance. The petitioner no.1 shall pay house hold expenses

of Rs. 8000/- pm, school fees of his daughter of Rs. 6000/- and other

expense of the child of Rs. 4000/- pm with increase of 20% per year.

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

of her affidavit dated 31.10.2015 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 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.317/2012

dated 13.10.2012, under Sections 498A/323/34 IPC registered at

Police Station Mukherjee Nagar and the proceedings emanating

therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.

15. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE MARCH 04, 2016 dd