W.P.(CRL)/3032/2015 of RAO SHAKTI & ORS Vs THE STATE & ANR

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(CRL) 3032/2015

RAO SHAKTI & ORS..... PetitionersThroughMr.Sanjeev Kumar & Mr.MaheshKumar Sharma, Advs.

versus

THE STATE & ANR..... RespondentsThroughMr.Sanjay Lao, ASC withMr.Siddharth Sindhu, Adv.SI Subhash Chand CAW Cell/East.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMARO R R%21.12.2015

Crl.M.A No.18638/2015

Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(Crl.) 3032/2015

The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 859/2013 (P.S. MadhuVihar) instituted for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC on thestrength of settlement having been arrived at with the complainant(respondent no.2).

The petitioner no. 1 is the husband of respondent no. 2 and the otherpetitioners are related to petitioner no. 1.

The marriage between the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 wassolemnized on 05.05.2005 as per Hindu rites and customs at New Delhi and

out of said wedlock, two children were born. However, disputes arosebetween the petitioners and respondent no.2 on account of temperamentaldifferences.

The respondent no. 2 filed complaint at CAW Cell whichsubsequently, led to the registration of the subject FIR under Sections406/498A/34 of the IPC.

With the intervention of the relatives and well-wishers of the family,later, settlement came to be arrived at between the parties, whereinpetitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 agreed to resolve their differences andmake attempts to restore their matrimonial relations. In terms of thesettlement, the petitioner no. 1 and respondent no.2 have started livingtogether as man and wife along with their two children.

The parties are present in the Court and they testify to the avermentsmade in the petition.

Considering the fact that the grievance of the respondent no.2 hasbeen completely redressed and petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 havenow started residing together, it would only be in the fitness of things thatthe subject FIR be quashed.

In the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. vs. Babita Raghuvanshi& Anr. (2013) 4 SCC 58, wherein the Supreme Court in respect of thematrimonial disputes has specifically held as follows:-

“15. In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encouragegenuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly,when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the

offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonialdisputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settledthe same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that forthe purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of theCode would not be bar to the exercise of power of quashingof FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.16. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes inrecent times. They institution of marriage occupies animportant place and it has an important role to play in thesociety. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interestof the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in lifeand live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaultsand terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreementinstead of fighting it out in court of law, in order to docomplete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts shouldbe less hesitant in exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction.It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should beexercised sparingly and with circumspection only when theCourt is convinced, on the basis of material on record, thatallowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse ofprocess of court or that the ends of justice require that theproceedings ought to be quashed….”

Keeping in mind the facts of this case and the settlement between theparties, allowing the criminal proceeding to be continued any further wouldnot be in accord with the guiding factor namely securing the ends of justice.

For the reasons aforerecorded FIR No. 859/2013 (PS. Madhu Vihar)and all the emanating proceedings thereof are quashed.

The petition is disposed of in terms of the above.

DECEMBER 21, 2015/ns

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J