Delhi High Court
Bharat Bhushan (Father In Law) & ... vs State & Anr on 20 August, 2019
$~13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 20th August, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 2308/2019
BHARAT BHUSHAN (FATHER IN LAW) & ORS
..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajendra Jha & Mr.
Birendra Prasad Singh, Advs.
with petitioners in person.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP
for the State with ASI Virendra
Prakash, PS Gandhi Nagar.
Mr. J.L. Bahl, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The second respondent was married to Hitesh
as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 13.07.2005. From out of the said
wedlock, two children were born, a boy namely Shreyansh and a girl
child named Bhavya, who are in the care and custody of the first and
second petitioners (grandparents). The marriage ran into rough
weather during the lifetime of the husband, the second respondent
raising allegations of she having been subjected to cruelty and
harassment for and on account of demand of dowry. Her husband
passed away on 19.10.2015. However, the cruelty and ill-treatment
meted out to her was alleged to have continued at the hands of the
petitioners. The second respondent lodged the first information report
(FIR) no. 04/2017, it having been registered on 02.01.2017, by police
station Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, on her complaint involving offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC), the case being directed against her father-in-law (first
petitioner), mother-in-law (second petitioner) and sister-in-law (third
petitioner). On conclusion of the investigation, police filed report
(charge-sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (Cr. PC) on which cognizance was taken, the said matter now
pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate.
2. The parties were referred to Delhi Mediation Centre at
Karkardooma District Courts, where they agreed to amicably resolve
the dispute. Accordingly, they have entered into settlement dated
22.03.2019, in terms of which the parties were to approach, as per the
timelines indicated, the appropriate forum for obtaining the decree of
divorce, they also having agreed inter alia for the criminal case arising
out of the aforementioned FIR sought to be quashed.
3. As per the said settlement, the petitioners were to pay to the
second respondent a total sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as full and final
settlement towards her claim for stridhan, dowry articles, jewellery,
maintenance (past, present and future), permanent alimony, etc.
4. The present petition has been filed on the basis of afore-
mentioned settlement seeking quashing of the proceedings in the
criminal case.
5. The second respondent, on notice, has entered appearance and
pursuant to the directions has filed an affidavit sworn on 17.07.2019,
giving no objection to the prayer for quashing of the afore- mentioned
FIR no. 04/2017. Along with the affidavit she has also filed copy of
her aadhar card as proof of her identity.
6. At the hearing, the petitioners have handed over to the second
respondent and she has received a demand draft bearing no. 721686,
dated 19.08.2019, for Rs. 3,00,000/- drawn on Canara bank, Saran
Chowk, Faridabad, a copy whereof is taken on record.
7. Pertinent to note here that offence under Section 498A IPC is
not compoundable. The parties are constrained to move this court for
quashing on the basis of amicable resolution arrived at by them in the
facts and circumstances noted above.
8. The scope and ambit of the power conferred on this court by
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) read
with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in the particular
context of prayer for quashing criminal proceedings, has been the
subject matter of scrutiny and comment by the Supreme Court in a
catena of judgments. It is well settled that in exercise of this
"inherent" and "wholesome power", the touchstone is as to whether
"the ends of justice so require". This court had the occasion to trace
the relevant law on the subject in a batch of matters led by Yashpal
Chaudhrani vs. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi), 2019 SCC Online Del
8179 wherein after taking note, inter alia, of State of Karnakata v. L
Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699; State of Karnataka v. M.
Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89; B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana,
(2003) 4 SCC 675; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (2012) 10
SCC 303; Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 SCC
58; K Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226; Narinder Singh
v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466; State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu
Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; Parbhatbhai Aahir Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Kurmur, (2017) 9 SCC 641 and State of Madhya
Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others, (2019) 5 SCC 688; the broad
principles were culled out as under :-
"55. Though the above-noted authoritative pronouncements
of the Supreme Court have consistently laid down the broad
principles governing the exercise of power of the High Court
under Section 482 of the Cr. PC for bringing an end to the
criminal process, for addressing the concerns noted at the
outset and future guidance of trial courts, some of the crucial
ones may be flagged as under:--
(i). The inherent jurisdiction vested in the High
Court, as recognized and preserved by Section 482
Cr. PC, is primarily to "prevent abuse of the
process of court" or to "otherwise secure the ends
of justice".
(ii). The ends of justice are higher than the ends of
mere law, the prime principle governing the
exercise of inherent power being "to do real,
complete and substantial justice" for which the
court exists.
(iii) It is the duty of the court to give "adequate
treatment to the settlement between the parties"
particularly in cases involving compoundable
offences, the exercise of inherent power of the High
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., however, not
being inhibited in case of non-compoundable
offences though, for the latter category, such power
is to be "exercised sparingly and with caution".
(iv). If the criminal case has "overwhelmingly and
predominantly civil character", particularly if it
arises out of "commercial" (financial, mercantile,
partnership or such other) transaction - and this
would include the "cheque bouncing cases" under
Section 138 N.I. Act - or "matrimonial dispute" or
"family dispute", genuine resolution on equitable
terms, in entirety, by the parties should result in
criminal proceedings being quashed.
(v). Since the institution of marriage has an
important role to play in the society, the court is to
make every effort to encourage the parties to
terminate such discord amicably and if it appears
that elements of settlement exist, and the parties
are willing, they are to be directed to the process of
mediation to explore the possibility of settlement, it
being desirable to do so even at the "pre-litigation
stage".
(vi). While examining the prayer for quashing of a
non compoundable offence, on the basis of
settlement of the dispute between the wrongful doer
and the victim, the High Court is to bear in mind as
to whether the possibility of conviction is "remote
and oblique" and further, if the continuation of the
criminal case would lead to "oppression and
prejudice" or "extreme injustice" for the accused.
(vii). The considerations which would weigh with
Court include the antecedents of the accused,
possible lack of bona fides, his past conduct and
that includes the question as to whether he had
earlier absconded and as to how he had managed
with the complainant to enter into a compromise.
(viii). But, the High Court, when called upon to
exercise the power under Section 482 Cr. PC to
bring the criminal case to an end on the basis of
settlement, must steer clear of intervention in
"heinous" or "serious" offences, including those
involving "mental depravity", as indeed
"economic offences" affecting "the financial and
economic well being of the State", such as murder,
attempt to murder, extortion, forgery, rape,
dacoity, financial or economic frauds, cases under
Arms Act, etc., the reason being that such offences
are "not private in nature" but have "a serious
impact upon society", and continuation of trial
thereof is essential due to "overriding element of
public interest".
(ix). The court, however, is not to go by mere use of
label of a serious offence (e.g. offence under
Section 307 IPC), it being open to it to examine, by
scrutiny of the evidence gathered, to find as to
whether there are sufficient grounds to frame
charge for such offence and, in this view, it being
"not permissible" to intervene till the matter has
been properly investigated."
9. In a case where criminal proceedings arise essentially out of
matrimonial dispute and the parties have decided to bury the hatchet,
the court must examine if there is any likelihood of the criminal
prosecution resulting in conviction. In fact-situation wherein the
matrimonial relation has been brought to an end by mutual consent
and the parties are eager to move on with their respective lives seeking
closure and if there is nothing to indicate lack of bonafide on the part
of any side, denial of the prayer for quashing the criminal case would
restore acrimony rather than bring about peace. Allowing continuance
of the criminal action would be fruitless and clearly an abuse of
judicial process.
10. The case at hand passes the muster of the above-noted tests.
11. In the above facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed.
The crime registered by the police vide FIR No.04/2017 under
Sections 406, 498A, 34 IPC of Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Delhi,
and the proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners are
hereby quashed.
12. The petition and the application filed therewith are disposed of
accordingly.
Dasti to both sides.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
August 20 , 2019
