CRL.M.C./1905/2016 of NAVRATTAN & ORS Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 1905/2016

Date of Decision: August 19[th], 2016..... Petitioner

NAVRATTAN & ORS

ThroughMr.Brijesh Panchal, Adv.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR..... RespondentsThroughMs.Manjeet Arya, APP for the StateSI Karambir, PS Narela.Respondent 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. Navrattan, Smt. Shiv Kaur, Smt. Bimlesh,Sh. Sher Singh, Sh. Mukesh, Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sh. Kanwar Singh,Sh. Gajraj and Sh. Pramod for quashing of FIR No.574/2015 dated14.05.2015, under Sections 498-A/406 IPC registered at Police StationNarela on the basis of settlement arrived at between petitioner no.1and respondent no.2, namely, Ms. Preeti before Ld. Judge, FamilyCourt, North, Rohini Courts in Mt. No.344/15 on 12.02.2016.

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 SI Karambir.

3.The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage wassolemnized between petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 on

07.12.2008 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The in-laws andhusband of the complainant/respondent no.2 used to beat hermercilessly and on 05.11.2014 the complainant was allegedly beatenblack and blue by her husband and in-laws so much so that shebecame unconscious.

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 petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 2.

4.Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that thedispute between the parties has been amicably resolved and thepetitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 have been residing togetheras husband and wife since December 2015.

Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaidsettlement and of her affidavit dated 12.05.2016 supporting thispetition. In the affidavit, she has stated that she has no objection if theFIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have beenresolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitionerssurvives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question bebrought to an end. Statement of the respondent No.2 has beenrecorded in this regard in which she stated that she has entered into acompromise with the petitioners and has settled all the disputes withthem. She further stated that she has no objection if the FIR inquestion is quashed.

5.In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 ApexCourt has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in

cases 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 theproceedings 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 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; where

the 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/0808/2009

has 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 of

Section 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 that

adopted 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.574/2015dated 14.05.2015, under Sections 498-A/406 IPC registered at Police

Station Narela and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashedagainst the petitioners.

15.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

AUGUST 19, 2016/dd

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE