W.P.(CRL)/3098/2015 of NAVNEET SINGH & ORS Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+W.P.(CRL) 3098/2015

NAVNEET SINGH & ORS..... PetitionersThrough:Ms.Esha Mazundar, Adv.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

..... RespondentsThrough:Mr.Piyush Singhal, Adv. with Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, ASC.SI Rajpal PS Tilak Nagar.Mr.Amit Verma, Adv. forcomplainant.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R R%23.12.2015

Crl. M.A. No. 18949/2015

Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.Application stands disposed of.

W.P. (Crl.) 3098/2015

The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 1643/2014(PS. Tilak Nagar) instituted for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of theIPC, on the strength of settlement having been arrived at with thecomplainant (respondent no.2).

The petitioner no.1 was married to respondent no.2 on 25.11.2012 atNew Delhi in accordance with Sikh rites and ceremonies. Both the parties

lived together from the date of their marriage and cohabited as husband andwife till 16.12.2013. The petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the father-in-law,mother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively of respondent no.2.

The abovementioned FIR came to be registered on account ofirreconcilable differences arising between the parties the petitioner No. 1and respondent No. 2 started living separately after 16.12.2013. It is due tothe same disputes and differences that the subject FIR came to be registered.Thereafter, with the considerable efforts by the parties and relatives, thedisputes and differences between them were settled on 30.12.2014 in PSTilak Nagar. It was, inter alia, agreed that the parties shall prefer petitionfor dissolution of marriage by mutual consent and the Petitioner No. 1 shallpay an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) tothe respondent no.2 towards past, present and future maintenance andalimony and towards full and final settlement of all her claims against thepetitioners. Memorandum of Understanding was also executed betweenthe parties on 30.12.2014.

In terms thereof, it was agreed that Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One LakhFifty Thousand Only)would be paid at the time of recording of statement inproceedings under Section 13 (B) (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafterreferred to as 'the HMA') and Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lahs Only) wouldbe paid at the time of recording the statement in proceedings under Section13 (B) (2) of the HMA. The third installment of Rs. 2 Lakhs was agreed tobe paid at the time of quashing of the subject FIR.

The parties are present in court.

The investigation in the matter is still continuing.

It is submitted that the petitioner No. 1 has already paid sum of Rs.3,50,000/- in terms of the aforementioned MOU. The third installment of Rs.2,00,000/- has been paid in the Court today by way of Demand Draft No.012231 dated 08.12.2015 drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Tilak Nagar, Branch,Delhi.

It is submitted by respondent no.2 that in view of the foregoing, allher grievances against the petitioners stand completely redressed and thatshe does not wish to pursue the case any further. The respondent no.2 has noobjection if the subject FIR is quashed.

Considering the fact that now the dispute, which was basicallymatrimonial in nature, has been settled because of efforts by theinterlocutors and relatives, this Court is inclined to quash the subject FIR.

In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303,the Supreme Court has held that cases which are not compoundable underSection 320 of the Cr.P.C. could also be quashed, when continuation of anycriminal proceeding would be an exercise in futility and where justicedemands that the dispute between the parties should be put to an end andpeace is restored. But ending of such criminal proceedings could only beordered for securing the ends of justice.

The Supreme Court has further observed in Gian Singh (Supra):

“58............................ No doubt, crimes are acts which haveharmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing thatseriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the societyand it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the

victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim hasbeen paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been madecompoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court.In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., orother offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moralturpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of CorruptionAct or the offences committed by public servants while working inthat capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victimcan have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences whichoverwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour havingarisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnershipor such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony,particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, wherethe wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and thevictimhavesettledalldisputesbetweenthemamicably,irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been madecompoundable, the High Court may within the framework of itsinherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminalcomplaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of suchsettlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender beingconvicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justiceshall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The abovelist is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on itsown facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.”[Refer to B.S. Joshi, (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant, (2008) 9SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma, (2008) 16 SCC 1.]

In Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC

466, the pertinent observations of the Apex Court are as under:-

29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay downthe following principles by which the High Court would be guidedin giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the partiesand exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code whileaccepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusingto accept the settlement with direction to continue with thecriminal proceedings:

29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to bedistinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compoundthe offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, underSection 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power toquash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are notcompoundable, where the parties have settled the matter betweenthemselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly andwith caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on thatbasis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, theguiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends ofjustice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Whileexercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion oneither of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutionswhich involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity oroffences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are notprivate in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly,for the offences alleged to have been committed under specialstatute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offencescommitted by public servants while working in that capacity arenot to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between thevictim and the offender.

29.4.Ontheotherhand,thosecriminalcaseshavingoverwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularlythose arising out of commercial transactions or arising out ofmatrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashedwhen the parties have resolved their entire disputes amongthemselves.29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examineas to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak andcontinuation of criminal cases would put the accused to greatoppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be causedto him by not quashing the criminal cases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the categoryof heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generallytreated as crime against the society and not against the individualalone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely

because there is mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or thecharge is framed under this provision. It would be open to theHigh Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collectedsufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving thecharge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be opento the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whethersuch injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body,nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuriessuffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On thebasis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine asto whether there is strong possibility of conviction or thechances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case itcan refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminalproceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible forthe High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence basedon complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, theCourt can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement betweenthe parties is going to result in harmony between them which mayimprove their future relationship.29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play crucial role.Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately afterthe alleged commission of offence and the matter is still underinvestigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting thesettlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It isbecause of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still onand even the chargesheet has not been filed. Likewise, those caseswhere the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or theevidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can showbenevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after primafacie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above.On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almostcomplete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is atthe stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrainfrom exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as insuch cases the trial court would be in position to decide the casefinally on merits and to come to conclusion as to whether the

offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, inthose cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trialcourt and the matter is at the appellate stage before the HighCourt, mere compromise between the parties would not be aground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offenderwho has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge isproved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recordedof heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparinga convict found guilty of such crime.”

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 encourage genuine

settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the sameare on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and theCourt is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicablyand without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securingends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be bar to theexercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequentcriminal proceedings.

16. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recenttimes. They institution of marriage occupies an important placeand it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore,every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals inorder to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. Ifthe parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputesamicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in courtof law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters,the courts should be less hesitant in exercising their extraordinaryjurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only whenthe Court 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….”

Thus, the inherent powers of the High Court, having wide plenitudecould be used for quashing the FIR for securing the ends of justice and toprevent the abuse of the process of the court.

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. FIR No. 1643/2014 (PS. Tilak

Nagar) and all the emanating proceedings thereof are quashed.

The petition is disposed of in terms of the above.

DECEMBER 23, 2015k

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J