CRL.M.C./11/2016 of SANJAY SHARMA & ORS Vs THE STAE AND ANR

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 11/2016 & Crl.M.A. No. 44/2016

Date of Decision : April 05[th], 2016

SANJAY SHARMA & ORS

Through

..... Petitioners

Mr.B.S. Tiwari, Adv.

versus

THE STATE AND ANR

..... RespondentsThroughMs.Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for theState with Mr.Surender Sharma, PSShalimar Bagh.Mr.Aditya Sharma, Adv. withRespondent No.2 in person .

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

P.S.TEJI, J.

1.The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed bythe petitioners, namely, Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Sh. Jagdish KishoreSharma and Smt. Sushila Sharma for quashing of FIR No. 790/2004dated 15.09.2004, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered atPolice Station Shalimar Bagh on the basis of the Joint Statement ofpetitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 namely, Ms. Raman Sharmabefore Ld.Addl. Principal Judge,Rohini, Delhi recorded on01.08.2013 in view of the settlement arrived at between them.

2.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-Statesubmitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been

identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in questionby her counsel.

3.The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriagebetween the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 was solemnizedon 20.11.1989. After marriage, Santosh Tiwari constantly harassed thecomplainant by making remarks on the lack of dowry. One evening,when the husband of the complainant came home, Ms. Santosh Tiwaritold him that the complainant has been misbehaving with her and thusthe husband of the complainant gave beatings to the complainant. Theperiod since the complainant’s first arrival at Jaipur from 1993 to 98-99 were the most traumatic years of the life of the complainant withconstant mental and physical abuse. The complainant’s health startedto deteriorate due to constant beating from the husband and father-in-law of the complainant. Later, the complainant came to know that herhusband was having relations with other girls too. The husband of thecomplainant stayed in Delhi for year after the complainant and heseparated in the year 1999 and continued to mentally torture thecomplainant over the phone. In the month of May 2002, the in-laws ofthe complainant came to her to take the kids along and thecomplainant was threatened by them for refusing. All the jewelleryand other istridhan of the complainant were still lying with herhusband and her in-laws and it was not returned to her.

The respondent no.2/complainant lodged the FIR in questionagainst the petitioners. The charge sheet was filed in the matter againstthe petitioners. The respondent no.2 filed case under Section 125Cr.P.C. During the proceedings, the matter was amicable settled and

the maintenance application was dismissed as withdrawn.

4.Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that thedispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per thejoint statement, it has been agreed that the parties applied fordissolution of marriage by mutual consent and the first motion wasaccepted on 14.08.2012 by the concerned Family Court, Rohini. It isalso agreed that the parties have settled all their disputes for the fulland final settlement amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs and on payment of Rs.25Lakhs, respondent no.2 shall be left with no claim against stridhan,dowry articles, permanent alimony, maintenance- past, present andfuture. It is also agreed that the petitioner no.1 has already paid anamount of Rs. 10 Lakhs at the time of first motion. It is also agreedthat the petitioner no.1 has already paid Rs. 3.75 Lakhs for masterAnanya Sharma by way of DD of Rs. 2 Lakhs and 1.75 in cash on27.05.2013. It is also agreed that the petitioner no.1 is giving Rs. 3.75Lakhs to the respondent no.2 in favour of both children by way of twoDDs bearing nos. 209705 & 209706 both dated 30.07.2013 drawn onICICI Bank of the sum of Rs. 1.25 Lakhs each and Rs. 1.25 Lakhs incash today in the Court. It is also agreed that the petitioner no.1 shallpay the balance amount of Rs. 7.50 Lakhs to respondent no.2 at thetime of quashing of FIR in question. It is also agreed that the partiesshall not have any right, title or interest of any nature whatsoeveragainsteachotherinthepropertiesintheirpossessionoracquired/obtained in future. It is also agreed that the parties shallwithdraw all pending litigations, if any, against each other or theirrespective family members, if any, forthwith and have also agreed not

to file any proceedings against each other in the future with respect tothe present matrimonial dispute. Respondent No.2 affirmed thecontents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated18.12.2015 supporting this petition. In the affidavit, the respondentno.2 has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question isquashed. All the disputes and differences have been resolved throughmutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, theproceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.Statement of the respondent No.2 has been recorded in this regard inwhich she stated that she has entered into compromise with thepetitioners and has settled all the disputes with them. She furtherstated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.

5.In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 ApexCourt has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes incases like the instant one, by observing as under:-

“61.In other words, the High Court must considerwhether it would be unfair or contrary to the interestof justice to continue with the criminal proceedingsorcontinuationofcriminalproceedingswouldtantamount to abuse of process of law despitesettlement and compromise between the victim andthe wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends ofjustice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to anend and if the answer to the above question(s) is in theaffirmative, the High Court shall be well within itsjurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interestof justice to continue with the criminal proceedingsorcontinuationofcriminalproceedingswouldtantamount to abuse of process of law despitesettlement and compromise between the victim andthe wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends ofjustice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to anend and if the answer to the above question(s) is in theaffirmative, the High Court shall be well within itsjurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”6.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in arecent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh(Supra) are as under:-

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum upand lay down the following principles by which theHigh Court would be guided in giving adequatetreatment to the settlement between the parties andexercising its power under Section 482 of the Codewhile accepting the settlement and quashing theproceedings or refusing to accept the settlement withdirection to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Codeis to be distinguished from the power which lies in theCourt to compound the offences under Section 320 ofthe Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code,the High Court has inherent power to quash thecriminal proceedings even in those cases which arenot compoundable, where the parties have settled thematter between themselves. However, this power is tobe exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlementand on that basis petition for quashing the criminalproceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such caseswould be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to forman opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.29.3. Such power is not to be exercised in thoseprosecutionswhich involveheinous and seriousoffences of mental depravity or offences like murder,rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private innature and have serious impact on society. Similarly,for the offences alleged to have been committed underspecial statute like the Prevention of Corruption Actor the offences committed by public servants whileworking in that capacity are not to be quashed merelyon the basis of compromise between the victim andthe offender.29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases havingoverwhelmingly and predominantly civil character,particularlythosearisingoutofcommercial

transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationshipor family disputes should be quashed when the partieshave resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

7.The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised toprevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.The respondent no.2 agrees to the quashing of the FIR in questionwithout any threat or coercion or undue influence and has stated thatthe matter has been settled out of her own free will. As the matter hasbeen settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be anextraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal proceedingsbetween the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the consideredopinion that this is fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure theends of justice.

8.The incorporation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provisionof law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process isabused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured; wherethe process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid thecausing of harassment to any person by using the provision of Cr.P.C.or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery of justice.Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent theexpress provisions of law.

9.It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court underSection 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon’ble ApexCourt in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram

Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case ofInder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercisedsparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Courtcomes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or therewould be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is notexercised, Court would quash the proceedings.10.It is well settled law that where the High Court is convincedthat the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do notaffect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing ofsuch proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peaceand would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them.In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time andenergy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction inentering into compromise.In certain cases, the main offence iscompoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S.Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions ofSection 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are notcompoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose ofsecuring the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary,section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be bar to the exercise of power ofquashing.In the nutshell, the Hon’ble Apex Court justified theexerciseofpowersunderSection482Cr.P.C.toquashtheproceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts

and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non-compoundable.

In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view thatnotwithstanding the fact the offence under Section 498A IPC is non-compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing theFIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the factsand circumstances of the case so warrant.

11.The Courts in India are now normally taking the view thatendeavour should be taken to promote conciliation and secure speedysettlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs such as,matrimonial disputes between the couple or/and between the wife andher in-laws. India being vast country naturally has large number ofmarried persons resulting into high numbers of matrimonial disputesdue to differences in temperament, life-styles, opinions, thoughts etc.between such couples, due to which majority is coming to the Court toget redressal. In its 59[th]report, the Law Commission of India hademphasized that while dealing with disputes concerning the family, theCourt ought to adopt an approach radically different from thatadopted in ordinary civil proceedings and that it should makereasonable efforts at settlement before the commencement of the trial.Further it is also the constitutional mandate for speedy disposal ofsuch disputes and to grant quick justice to the litigants. But, ourCourts are already over burdened due to pendency of large number ofcases because of which it becomes difficult for speedy disposal ofmatrimonial disputes alone. As the matrimonial disputes are mainlybetween the husband and the wife and personal matters are involved

in such disputes, so, it requires conciliatory procedure to bring asettlement between them. Nowadays, mediation has played veryimportant role in settling the disputes, especially, matrimonialdisputes and has yielded good results. The Court must exercise itsinherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to put an end to thematrimonial litigations at the earliest so that the parties can livepeacefully.

12.Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial,which now stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties,therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR inquestion would be an exercise in futility and is fit case for this Courtto exercise its inherent jurisdiction.

13.In the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of statementmade by the respondent No.2 and the compromise arrived at betweenthe parties, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end andproceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.

14.Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 790/2004dated 15.09.2004, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered atPoliceStationShalimarBaghandtheproceedingsemanatingtherefrom are quashed against the petitioners.

15.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

16.Application Crl.M.A. No. 44/2016 is also disposed of.

APRIL 05, 2016/dd

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE