Ajay Kumar Dhuper & Ors vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 2261 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 5246/2015
                                     Date of Decision : March 22nd, 2016
    AJAY KUMAR DHUPER & ORS                                   ... Petitioner
                         Through     Mr. Ramit Malhotra, Advocate

                         versus

    STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR                      ... Respondent
                  Through   Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional
                            Public Prosecutor for the State
                            Mr. Vikas Goyal, 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. Ajay Kumar Dhuper, Sh. Krishan Kumar Dhupar, Smt. Usha Rani Dhupar, Sh. Vijay Dhupar and Smt. Tripti Dhupar for quashing of FIR No.284/2011 dated 10.11.2011, under Section 498-A IPC registered at Police Station Moti Nagar on the basis of the report of the Counseling Cell, Ld. Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner no.1 and respondent No.2, namely, Goldy on 10.03.2015.

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 petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 was solemnized on 06.04.1998 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the marriage, all the jewellery of the complainant was taken by her mother-in-law. On the next day of the marriage, the parents of petitioner no.1 started taunting the complainant for not bringing a car in the marriage. After three months of the marriage, the complainant became pregnant and none of her in-laws were happy about it. The complainant was made to do all the house hold chores even in that condition. The husband of the complainant was having an affair with a girl namely Jubilee. All the in-laws of the complainant used to treat Jubilee as the wife of petitioner no.1. being helpless, the complainant approached the Legal Aid Office, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi where the complainant decided to get her marriage dissolved by mutual consent and that both the children would remain in the custody of the complainant. After paying maintenance for two months, the petitioner no.1 stopped paying the same. In March, 2011, the petitioner no.1 took away his daughter namely Srishti. Suddenly, on 25.04.2011, Srishti came back and informed her mother that she was treated very badly by her father and Jubilee in his house.

Thereafter, the complainant lodged a complaint which resulted into registration of the FIR in question against the petitioners. The respondent no.2 also filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., during

the pendency of which the matter was got settled between the parties.

4. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the report of Counseling Cell, the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 have agreed to take divorce by way of mutual consent within the jurisdiction of a Delhi Court. It is also agreed that the petitioner no.1 shall pay an amount of Rs. 7.5 Lakhs as full and final settlement against stridhan, dowry, maintenance (including arrears of maintenance form January 2011 to Feb 2015) towards past, present and future qua this marriage and nothing remain due qua this marriage). It is also agreed between the parties that the petitioner no.1 shall pay Rs. 15,000/- per month towards maintenance of the children w.e.f. March, 2015 subject to increase by 10% from January 2017. It is also agreed that thereafter, the maintenance shall increase @ 10% after every three years. It is agreed that the share of the said maintenance amount is to be apportioned between the kids at Rs. 7,500/- per child. It is also agreed that the petitioner no.1 shall pay maintenance for the daughter till the time she gets married or either gets a job and for the son till he attains majority. It is also agreed that the petitioner no.1 shall pay Rs. 3 lakhs as first installment; Rs. 2 lakhs as second installment; and Rs. 2.5 lakhs as the third installment to the respondent no.2 at the time of quashing of the FIR. It is agreed that respondent no.2 shall cooperate with petitioner no.1 for the quashing of the FIR in question before this Court. It is also agreed that the respondent no.2 shall give her bank account number with IFSC code to petitioner no.1 for transfer of monthly maintenance. It is also agreed

that maintenance for the period of March, 2015 shall be paid along with maintenance of April, 2015 subject to providing the bank account details by respondent no.2 to petitioner no.1. It is also agreed that the parties shall withdraw all cases, as enunciated in the terms of settlement, against each other. It is further agreed that the custody of both children shall remain with the respondent no.2 only. It is also agreed that the divorce petition shall be filed in the manner enunciated in the terms of the settlement and that the case pending in Court of Ms. Reena Singh Nag, Addl. Principal Judge, Family Courts West THC, Delhi shall also be withdraw by the party having filed it. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 21.12.2015 supporting this petition. As per the affidavit filed by respondent no.2, she has settled all her disputes with the petitioners and 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.284/2011 dated 10.11.2011, under Section 498-A IPC registered at Police Station Moti Nagar and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.

15. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE MARCH 22, 2016 dd