Delhi High Court
Wasim & Anr. vs The State & Anr. on 22 September, 2023
$~44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 22nd September 2023
+ CRL.M.C. 6525/2023
WASIM & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for
State with SI Naveen.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JUDGEMENT
JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
CRL. M.A. 24484/2023 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 6525/2023
3. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking
quashing of FIR No.94/2021 dated 07.04.2021, under Sections
354/354A/354B IPC registered at PS I.P. Estate, Delhi including all
proceedings arising therefrom, predicated on a settlement arrived at between
the parties.
4. Respondent No. 2/Complainant is the wife of Petitioner No. 2 and
sister-in-law (bhabhi) of Petitioner No. 1. A matrimonial dispute arose
between Respondent No. 2 and Petitioner No. 2 and Respondent No. 2 filed
Signature Not Verified
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:23.09.2023
21:58
an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 against the Petitioners. With the intervention of friends
and well wishers of parties, matter was amicably settled in April, 2021 and
Respondent No. 2 has joined the company of Petitioner No. 2, her husband
and both are living together happily since April, 2021.
5. Present FIR No. 94/2021 was registered at the instance of Respondent
No. 2 against the Petitioners, however, parties have settled all their disputes
amicably and a Compromise Deed has been executed on 22.05.2023,
recording the terms of compromise, a copy of which has been filed along
with the petition. It is recorded in the Deed that Respondent No. 2 has joined
the company of Petitioner No. 2 in April, 2021 and is living happily and
parties do not want to prosecute the cross FIRs filed against each other. Be it
noted that FIR No. 93/2021 has been registered at the instance of Petitioner
No. 2 herein against the brothers of Respondent No. 2 and is subject matter
of a separate petition being CRL. M.C. 6439/2023, in which the said FIR has
been quashed by a separate order passed today. Present petition is restricted
to quashing of FIR No. 94/2021.
6. Petitioners and Respondent No.2 are present in Court and have been
identified by their respective counsels as well as Investigating Officer SI
Naveen PS I.P. Estate.
7. Respondent No. 2 states that since the matter has been amicably
settled between the parties, she has no objection if the FIR is quashed. In
view of the settlement between the parties, learned APP for the State also
has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.
8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and the learned APP.
Power of the Court to quash criminal proceedings on the basis of a
Signature Not Verified
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:23.09.2023
21:58
settlement between the parties has been examined and delineated by the
Supreme Court in a number of judgments. Emphasizing that the exercise of
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case, the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, held that albeit the inherent
power is of wide plentitude with no statutory limitation but must be
exercised in accord with guidelines engrafted in such power viz.: to secure
the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of any Court. The
Supreme Court cautioned that heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. cannot be fittingly
quashed, however, criminal cases having overwhelming and predominantly
civil flavor stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing,
particularly, offences arising from commercial, civil disputes or those
pertaining to matrimonial relationships etc. where the wrong is basically
private or personal in nature and parties have resolved their entire dispute. It
was held thus:-
"61. .... But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes
of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences
arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes
where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties
have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High
Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the
compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case
would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme
injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite
full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 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 proceeding
or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of
process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and
Signature Not Verified
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:23.09.2023
21:58
the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate
that the 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 proceeding."
9. Guidelines laid down in Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of
Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, envisage that in case of pre-
existing familial or other personal relationships between the parties,
proceedings can be quashed to meet the ends of justice and prevent abuse of
the process of Court and/or waste of judicial time. Seen in the light of the
guidelines elucidated by the Supreme Court, it is evident in the present case
that parties are closely related and have amicably resolved their disputes.
Settlement has been reduced to writing in the Compromise Deed, which has
been filed in the Court. More importantly, Respondent No. 2 has returned to
her matrimonial home and is living happily with Petitioner No. 2, her
husband. In this view, no purpose will be served in keeping the present
proceedings alive and thus, this Court is of the view that FIR deserves to be
quashed in the interest of justice.
10. For all the aforesaid reasons and in view of the compromise between
the parties, FIR No.94/2021 dated 07.04.2021, under Sections
354/354A/354B IPC, registered at PS I.P. Estate, Delhi is hereby quashed
along with all proceedings emanating therefrom.
11. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
JYOTI SINGH, J
SEPTEMBER 22, 2023/ck/shivam
Signature Not Verified
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:23.09.2023
21:58
