Rattandeep Singh Babraa & Ors. vs State & Anr.
2016 Latest Caselaw 4075 Del

52
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                Date of decision:27th May, 2016

W.P.(CRL) 1707/2016 & CRL.M.A. 8902/2016

RATTANDEEP SINGH BABRAA & ORS.                                    ..... Petitioners

                              Through:     Ms Harpreet Kaur and Mr Tanveer
                                           Ahmed, Advocates.

                              versus

STATE & ANR.                                                    ..... Respondents

Through: Mr Rajesh MahajaN, Addl. Standing Counsel (Crl.).

Mr Pawan Madan, Advocate for R-2.

Insp. D.K.Tejwan, PS- South Campus.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

1. The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prays as

follows:-

"A. Pass a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ of the same nature to quash FIR No.14/2014 U/s 499/503 of Indian Penal Code, P.S. South

Campus and the proceedings arising therefrom; and B. Pass any other writ/order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

2. Issue notice.

3. Mr Rajesh Mahajan, learned Additional Standing Counsel (Crl.),

accepts notice on behalf of the official respondent and, at the outset, submits

that since the FIR relates to non-cognizable offences no police officer can

investigate the same without an order of a Magistrate having power to try

such case or commit the case for trial.

4. In terms of the provisions of Section 155 CrPC, the informant is

required to be referred to the concerned Magistrate. In the present case it is

observed that the complainant/informant is the respondent No.2 in the

present petition, namely, Ms Kirandeep Kaur and that the subject FIR

alleging the commission of non-cognizable offences was registered at her

instance.

5. Ms Kaur, the respondent No.2, who is present in person and has been

identified by the IO in the subject FIR, namely, Insp. D.K.Tejwan, PS- South

Campus, Delhi, states that subsequent to the institution of the subject

complaint which arose as a consequence of a matrimonial dispute, the parties

to the union as well as their extended families have entered into a

Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.12.2015 at New Delhi. The salient

terms and conditions of the aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding

19.12.2015 are as under:-

"1. That it has been agreed between the parties that the party of the 1st part shall pay a total sum of Rs.51 lakhs to the party of the 2nd part as full and final settlement of all claims of the party of the 2nd part arising out of this marriage including towards all past, present and future claims on account of maintenance, alimony, Istridhan, Dowry Articles etc. 2 That it has been further agreed between the parties that the parties that the party of the 1 st part shall pay a total sum of Rs.51 lacs to the party of the 2nd part in the following manner:-

a) Rs.10,20,000/- will be paid by the party of the 1st part to the party of the 2nd part at the time of recording of statement in the Ist motion I petition for divorce by mutual consent.

b) Rs. 5,10,000/- will be paid by party of the 1st part to the party of the 2nd part at the time of recording of statement in the petition for quashing of FIRs mentioned above, other than FIR no. 09/2014, P.S. Nanakpura, U/s 498-A/406/34 IPC before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

c) Rs. 17,85,000/- will be paid by party of the 1st part to the party of the 2nd part at the time of recording of statement in the IInd motion in petition for divorce by mutual consent.

d) Rs.17,85,000/- will be paid by party of the 1st part to the party of the 2nd part at the time of recording of statement in the petition for quashing of 09/2014, P.S. Nanakpura, U/s 498-A/406/34 IPC before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

3. That the party of the second part undertakes to withdraw the complaint cases filled by the party of the second part against the party of the first part and others under section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act pending in the court of Ms. Vandana Jain, M.M. Mahila Court, Saket, new Delhi by moving an application in the court on the same day of passing of 1st motion for divorce by mutual consent.

4. That immediately after the passing of the 1 st motion both he parties shall withdraw all complaints, all proceeding appellate or revision arising out of above said complaints and assist fully in winding up/quashing of the cases

mentioned in the list of cases given above.

5. That party of the second part agrees and undertakes to cooperate and sign all necessary documents themselves and through their attorneys for the purposes of quashing of FIR no.09/2014, P.S. Nanakpura, U/s 498-A/406/34 IPC against the party of the 1st part and his relatives after grant of divorce.

6. That the confirming party and the party of the second part agrees and undertakes to cooperate and sign all necessary documents themselves ad through their attorneys for the purposes of quashing of FIR No.219/2014 U/s 66-A, E/67 Information Technology Act, P.S. Rajinder Nagar against the party of the 2nd part after passing of 1st motion for divorces by mutual consent.

7. That all the parties further agrees and undertakes to cooperate and sign all necessary documents themselves or through their attorneys for the purposes of quashing of other FIRs except FIR no.09/2014, P.S. Nanakpura, U/s 498-A/406/34 IPC registered on the complaint of one against the other(s) after passing of 1st motion for divorce by mutual consent.

8. The parties agree to withdraw any suit, criminal complaints or any other legal or quasi-legal proceedings initiated by one party qua the other on their own behalf or on behalf of their relatives, family members or any other person after the recording of statement in 1st motion in petition for divorce by mutual consent.

6. A perusal of the afore-stated Memorandum of Understanding reveals

that as a consequence thereof multiple proceedings between the parties have

been resolved. Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties on instructions

from the latter state that the said memorandum of understanding has been

acted upon and that the quashing of the present proceeding shall have the

salutary effect of applying a quietus to contentious issues between the

parties.

7. In the present case, it is observed that the offences in the subject FIR

do not fall within the exempted categories of serious/heinous offences which

ought not to be quashed on the ground of an amicable resolution of the

disputes. [Ref. Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported as (2012)

10 SCC 303]. The offences alleged to have been committed in the subject

FIR are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society.

8. Mr Mahajan, learned Additional Standing Counsel (Crl.) appearing on

behalf of the official respondent does not oppose the quashing of the subject

FIR.

9. Since the dispute between the parties which arose out of a

matrimonial discord between petitioners and respondent No.2 and resulted in

the registration of the subject FIR, has been settled amicably by way of a

Memorandum of Understanding without any undue influence, pressure or

coercion, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the subject

FIR.

10. Resultantly, the FIR No.14/2014 under Sections 499/503 IPC and

registered at Police Station- South Campus, Delhi, is hereby set aside and

quashed qua the petitioners

11. With the above directions the writ petition is allowed and disposed of

accordingly.

12. A copy of this order be given dasti under signature of Court Master to

counsel for the parties.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J MAY 27, 2016 mk