Delhi High Court
Smt. Ganga Devi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 11 April, 2023
Neutral Citation Number : 2023:DHC:2574
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 838/2022
SMT. GANGA DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sujota Roy, Advocate
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for the
State with SI Dharmveer, PS Chhawla
Mr. Anuj Saini, Adv. for R-2.
% Date of Decision: 11th April, 2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner Smt. Ganga Devi-
mother-in-law of the complainant for quashing of FIR No. 534 /2014
registered at PS Chhawala, South West, Delhi under Sections
498A/406/34 IPC.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits Respondent No.2- Smt.
Saraswati was married to Dharamvir, the son of the petitioner on
26.06.2013 according to Hindu rites and customs at Arya Sam
Mandir. Consequently, on account of some matrimonial dispute, the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:17.04.2023
14:48:24
Neutral Citation Number : 2023:DHC:2574
present FIR was lodged by her against the petitioner and her son.
However, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that with the
intervention of the family members and well-wishers, respondent
No.2 has agreed to settle the matter with the petitioner. The MoU
dated 10.02.2022 was entered into between the parties which reads as
follows:
"1. That it is mutually agreed between the parties that all their
disputes and claims qua the present FIR has already been mutually
settled and neither of the parties shall claim anything from each
other.
2. That it is further agreed between the parties that neither of the
parties shall file any complaint or any case (civil or criminal)
against each other before any police authority or before any court of
law in terms of the present FIR.
3. That now after the present settlement, no dispute of any kind left
between the parties and all their previous disputes and claims stands
settled and it is agreed between the parties that they shall file a joint
petition for quashing of the FIR No.534/2014 of P.S. Chhawla and to
fully cooperate with each other and to remain present before the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at the time of recording of their
statements.
4. That both the parties arrived into the present settlement out of
their own sweet will and consent and without any force, coercion or
undue influence from any corner.
5.That both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the
present settlement."
3. Respondent No.2 is present in court and has duly been identified by
the IO. She states that she has entered into the settlement/MoU and
with her mother-in-law i.e; the petitioner voluntarily against all claims
(past, present and future) without any fear, undue influence or
coercion and does not want to pursue the matter.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:17.04.2023
14:48:24
Neutral Citation Number : 2023:DHC:2574
4. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana
2003(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 888 while relying on the judgment of
Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special JudicialMagistrate & Ors.
(1998) 5 SCC 749, observed that there is no straight jacket formula as
to where the court will exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse
of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
It is well settled that these powers have no limits. Of course, where
there is more power, it becomes necessary of exercise utmost care and
caution while invoking such powers.
5. In the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. v. Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. [(1998) 1 SCC 692], it was held that
while exercising the inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it
is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features
which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient
and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue.
Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction
are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by
allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while
taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the
proceedings.
6. Partial quashing or part quashing of FIR only qua the
petitioner/accused with whom the complainant has compromised or
settled the matter can be allowed and while quashing, it must be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:17.04.2023
14:48:24
Neutral Citation Number : 2023:DHC:2574
appreciated that the petitioner/accused cannot be allowed to suffer
based on a complaint filed by the respondent, when subsequently, all
disputes have been settled between the parties. Reliance can be placed
on Lovely Salhotra and Anr. vs. State, NCT of Delhi 2017
SCCOnline SC 636. This court has also quashed the FIR and
proceedings arising therefrom in part qua certain accusers with whom
the complaint entered into a settlement with. Reliance can be made on
order dated 30.01.2018 in Crl.M.C.No. 3690/2016 titled Poonam
Khanna vs State & Ors in Crl.M.C.No, order dated 09.03.2017 in
Crl. M.C. No. 2289/2013 titled Vijay Kumar Gupta vs. State,
Government of NCT of Delhi and order dated 12.04.2022 in Crl.
M.C. No. 1741/2021 titled Sunil Tomar vs The State of NCT of
Delhi & Anr.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgments and the facts and
circumstances of this case, since the matter is amicably settled
between the parties and in view of the submissions made by
respondent no.2, case FIR No.534 /2014 registered at PS Chhawala,
South West, Delhi under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and all the
proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
8. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J
APRIL 11, 2023
Pallavi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:17.04.2023
14:48:24
