Delhi High Court
Naushad Ali & Ors. vs The State Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 23 July, 2024
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~93
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 23.07.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 5582/2024
NAUSHAD ALI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.R.P. Bhardwaj, Mr.Gulbahar
Choudhary and Mr.Rahul Parashar,
Advocates with petitioners in person.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Ms.Kiran Bairwa, APP for State with
SI Pradeep Malik, P.S. Jamia Nagar.
Mr.Dev Dutt, Advocate with
respondent No.3 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% JUDGMENT
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
('Cr.P.C.') has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of
FIR No.33/2013, under Sections 498A/323/504/506 IPC & Sections 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at P.S.: Mahila Thana, Gautam Budh
Nagar, U.P. and proceedings emanating therefrom. Vide order dated
02.05.2017, proceedings were transferred from Court of Gautam Budh Nagar
to Court of jurisdiction in Delhi.
2. Issue notice. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
respondent No.3 along with respondent No. 3 appear on advance notice and
accept notice.
3. In brief, as per the case of the petitioners, marriage between petitioner
No.1 and respondent No. 3 was solemnized according to Muslims rites and
ceremonies on 14.02.2007. Two children were born out of the wedlock who
are presently in custody of respondent No.3. Due to temperamental
differences, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 started living separately.
On complaint of respondent No. 3, present FIR was registered on
18.04.2013.
4. The disputes have been amicably settled between the parties in terms
of Settlement dated 27.02.2021. Petitioner No.1 is stated to have divorced
respondent No.3 in terms of the aforesaid settlement. The entire amount of
settlement is further stated to have been already been paid to respondent
No.3, which is also confirmed by respondent No.3.
5. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of amicable settlement
between the parties, she has no objection in case the FIR in question is
quashed.
6. Petitioners in the present case seek to invoke the powers under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same is to be used to secure the
ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court. In which cases,
the power to quash the criminal proceedings or the complaint or FIR may be
used when the offender as well as victim have settled their dispute, would
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no generalized list
or categories can be prescribed. However, the Court is required to give due
regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and consider the impact on the
society.
7. It may also be observed that heinous and serious offences involving
mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot be
appropriately quashed despite settlement. However, distinguished from
serious offences, the offences which have predominant element of civil
dispute or offences involving minor incidents, where the complainant/victim
also stands compensated for loss, if any, stand on a different footing, so far
as exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned. The
High Court also is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists
material for incorporation of such an offence or as to whether there is
sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving the charge for the
offence charged with. It may also be assessed, if in view of compromise
between the parties, the possibility of conviction in such a case is remote and
whether continuation of proceedings would cause grave oppression and
prejudice the accused.
8. Petitioners and respondent No. 3 are present in person and have been
identified by SI Pradeep Malik, P.S.: Jamia Nagar. I have interacted with the
parties and they confirm that the matter has been amicably settled between
them without any threat, pressure or coercion. Respondent No. 3 also states
that nothing remains to be further adjudicated upon between the parties and
she has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
9. Petitioners and respondent No.3 intend to put quietus to the
proceedings arising out of matrimonial differences. The settlement shall
promote harmony between the parties and permit them to move forward in
life. Also the chances of conviction are bleak in view of amicable settlement
between the parties. Further, no past involvement of the petitioners has been
brought to the notice of this Court.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances, since the matter has been
amicably settled between the parties, no useful purpose shall be served by
keeping the case pending. Continuation of proceedings would be nothing but
an abuse of the process of Court. Consequently, under Sections
498A/323/504/506 IPC & Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered
at P.S.: Mahila Thana, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. and the proceedings
emanating therefrom stand quashed.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded to learned Trial Court for
information.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
JULY 23, 2024/v
