Gaurav Raheja & Ors vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3953 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 707/2016
                            Date of Decision: May 25th, 2016
    GAURAV RAHEJA & ORS                          .... Petitioners
                    Through Mr.Bharat Bagga, Adv.

                        versus

    THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR .... Respondents
                  Through   Mr.Amit Chadha, APP for the State.
                            SI Arvind Kumar, CAW Cell/East.
                            Mr.L.P. Luthra, Adv. with respondent
                            no.2 in person.
         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. Gaurav Raheja, Sh. Vikram Raheja and Smt. Chander Wati Raheja for quashing of FIR No.145/2013 dated 12.03.2013, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Vivek Vihar on the basis of the Memorandum of understanding in view of the settlement arrived at between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2, Smt. Monika Raheja on 16.05.2014.

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 in the FIR in question by her counsel.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 was solemnized on 01.12.2011. The complainant's in-laws weren't satisfied with the

dowry brought by the complainant. The complainant was taunted for bringing in less dowry and her family members were insulted on several occasions by the in-laws of the complaint. On 10.12.2011, petitioner no.1 left for U.K. and on 29.12.2011 respondent no.2 joined his company. On 15.04.2012, the complainant's husband slapped the complainant and got violent when the complainant refused to give her salary to him. The landlord upon hearing the commotion informed the Police and told the Police that he had witnessed the complainant's husband slapping the complainant. Upon coming to India, on 29.05.2012, the complainant was again abused upon which the complainant's uncle called the Police.

Thereafter, respondent no.2/complainant lodged a complaint which resulted into the registration of the FIR in question against the petitioners. Subsequently, 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 MOU, it is agreed between the parties that they shall take divorce by way of mutual consent and that they shall file joint petitions under Section 13(B)(1) & 13(B)(2) of H.M.A at a Family Court. It is also agreed that petitioner no. 1 shall pay a sum of RS. 7.5 Lakhs in total to respondent no.2 towards full and final settlement of all her claims towards istridhan, permanent alimony and maintenance past, present and future and other expenses out of which Rs. 5 Lakhs have already been deposited by petitioner no.1 before this Court. It is agreed that the balance amount of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs shall be paid in three installments

in the manner enunciated in the terms of the MOU. It is also agreed that out of the sum of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs, Rs. 75,000/- shall be paid at the time of recording of statement before this Court for quashing of the FIR in question. It is also agreed that the respondent no.2 shall withdraw her complaint case under Section 12 D.V. Act filed before filing of Second motion petition in divorce by mutual consent and in the event of non-cooperation found on her part, the Ld. Court may be requested to pass any appropriate order of treating the same as withdrawn. It is also agreed that the respondent no.2 has already received her articles from petitioner no.1 in the presence of her relatives before the CAW cell as per seizure memo. It is also agreed that the petitioner no.1 shall withdraw his complain in U.K. before police for which he shall move an appropriate application after filing of first motion and shall give a copy of the said application with endorsement by the concerned authorities to respondent no.2 before the filing of the second motion. It is also agreed that the parties shall withdraw all cases/complaint/petition, if any and further agreed to not file any case/compliant/suit against each other and their family members in future before any court of law or any authority. It is also agreed that the on receipt of the aforesaid payment and compliance of the terms of the MOU, both parties shall be left with no claims, rights or interests whatsoever against each other in respect of any assets, movable or immovable owned or possessed by them or to be owned or possessed by them or their family members at any point. It is also agreed that the parties shall not claim anything from each other or their family members. It is also agreed that parties shall not interfere

in each other's lives and that they shall live independently. It is also agreed that if petitioner no.1 breaches any term of the said agreement or does not turn up to give his statement in the second motion and/or quashing petition then the petitioner no.1 shall pay an amount of Rs. 7.5 Lakhs in addition to the amount already paid i.e. 6 Lakhs to respondent no.2 and respondent no.2 shall be at liberty to pray for divorce before the Court and incase if respondent no.2 breaches any term of the said agreement or does not turn up to give her statement in the second motion and/or quashing petition then the petitioner no.1 shall be at liberty to recover an amount of Rs. 7.5 Lakhs in addition to the amount already paid i.e. 6 Lakhs to respondent no.2 and also he shall be at liberty to pray for divorce before the Court. It is also agreed that if any of the parties have already initiated any proceedings which have not been mentioned, the same shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement. 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 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 tranquility 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 overburdened 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.145/2013 dated 12.03.2013, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Vivek Vihar and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.

15. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE May 25, 2016 dd