CRL.M.C./1636/2016 of NARESH KUMAR & ORS. Vs STATE & ANR.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 1636/2016

Date of Decision: August 10[th], 2016NARESH KUMAR & ORS...... PetitionersThroughMr.D.C. Narnolia, Adv.versus

STATE & ANR...... RespondentsThroughMr.G.M. Farooqui, APP for the State.Mr.Anwar Sayeed, 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. Naresh Kumar, Shri Ved Prakash, Smt.Santosh, Ms. Neetu and Sh. Rakesh for quashing of FIR No. 195/2012dated 12.07.2012, under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC registered atPolice Station Palam Village on the basis of settlement report ofMediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in view of the settlementarrived at between the petitioners and the respondent no. 2, namely,Smt. Usha on 27.03.2015.

2.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-Statesubmitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has beenidentified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in questionby her counsel.

3.The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage wassolemnized between petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 on12.12.2009 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The in-laws of

the complainant were not satisfied with the dowry and with the factthat the complainant did not work in private sector. In March 2010,when the petitioner no. 1/husband of the complainant got admitted tothe hospital, the bills amounting to Rs. 40,000/- were paid by thecomplainant/respondent no. 2 and her parents. On 26.11.2010, whenthe complainant gave birth to male child, the in-laws againdemanded gold chains and Rs. 2 lacs from the complainant. Father ofthe complainant gave gold and silver jewellery to the in-laws and thehusbandofthecomplainant.On15.12.2011,in-lawsofthecomplainant gave life threats to the complainant after which she gotscared and left the matrimonial house with her father.

Thereafter, the complainant got lodged the complaint followingwhich the FIR in question was registered against the petitioners.During the pendency of the proceedings, the matter was settledbetween the petitioners and the respondent no. 2.

4.Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that thedispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per thesettlement, it is agreed that the parties shall start living together ashusband and wife along with their child namely, Mohit in theirmatrimonial house w.e.f. the date of settlement and the petitioner no. 1shall maintain the respondent no. 2 and their child including hiseducational expenses and shall also bear all the household expenses. Itis agreed that subject to the fulfillment of the terms of the settlement,the respondent no. 2 shall cooperate in quashing of the FIR in questionlodged by her against the petitioners and the parties shall withdraw allthe cases filed by them against each other and shall bear the respective

costs of the litigation.

Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaidsettlement. All the disputes and differences have been resolvedthrough mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives andso, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to anend. Statement of the respondent No.2 has been recorded in this regardin which 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 interest of justiceto continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation ofcriminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process oflaw despite settlement and compromise between the victimand the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, itis appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if theanswer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the HighCourt shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminalproceedings.”

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 up and laydown the following principles by which the High Court wouldbe guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlementbetween the parties and exercising its power under Section 482of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the

proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with directionto continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to bedistinguished from the power which lies in the Court tocompound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Nodoubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court hasinherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in thosecases which are not compoundable, where the parties havesettled the matter between themselves. However, this power isto be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on thatbasis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed,the guiding factor in such cases would 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 form anopinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutionswhich involve heinous and serious offences of mentaldepravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Suchoffences are not private in nature and have serious impact onsociety. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have beencommitted under special statute like the Prevention ofCorruption Act or the offences committed by public servantswhile working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely onthe basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.29.4. Ontheotherhand,thosecriminalcaseshavingoverwhelminglyandpredominantlycivilcharacter,particularly those arising out of commercial transactions orarising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputesshould be quashed when the parties have resolved their entiredisputes 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 that

the 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. VikramAnatrai 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 tranquility 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 factsand 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 involvedin 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. 195/2012dated 12.07.2012, under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC registered atPolice Station Palam Village and the proceedings emanating therefromare quashed against the petitioners.

15.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

AUGUST 10, 2016/dd

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE