CRL.M.C./225/2016 of BIJENDER KUMAR Vs THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT DELHI) & ANR

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+CRL.M.C. 225/2016

Date of Decision : March 23[rd], 2016

BIJENDER KUMAR

..... PetitionerThroughMr.Azad Ali, Adv. with Mr.T.S.Pandey, Adv.

versus

THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT DELHI) & ANR..... RespondentThroughMr.Rajat Katyal, APP for the State.Mr.Santosh Kumar Pandey, Adv. &Mr.Arsad, Adv. with respondent no.2in 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 petitioner, namely, Sh. Bijender Kumar for quashing of FIR No.726/2007 dated 11.10.2007, under Section 498A IPC registered atPolice Station Ambedkar Nagar on the basis of settlement arrived atbetween petitioner no.1 and respondent No.2, namely, Ms. Sunita.

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

between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 was solemnized on26.02.2001. The husband and parents-in-law of the complainant werenot happy with the dowry given to them in the marriage. Thecomplainant was blessed with girl on 25.10.2001. The parents of thecomplainant bought gift for the entire family but the mother-in-lawand sisters-in-law of the complainant abused her and her parents. On28.09.2002, the husband and mother-in-law of the complainant tried tokill the complainant by putting her dupatta on fire. The complainantcalled up the police and thereafter the husband of the complainantapologized to her. The husband of the complainant left the home on14.08.2004, without intimating her. The mother-in-law and the sister-in-law of the complainant abused her and gave her severe beatings andthrew her out of the house. The father of the complainant went to hermatrimonial home to reconcile but he was abused and beaten up byMohinder-jeth of the complainant.

The respondent no.2/complainant lodged complaint before theCAW Cell, Amar Colony, New Delhi which resulted into theregistration of the FIR in question against the petitioner and his familymembers. However, after the completion of the investigation in theFIR in question, charge sheet was filed only against the petitioner-herein. Vide order dated 30.07.2013, the Ld. MM, Saket Courtsframed charge under Section 498A IPC only against the petitioner anddischarged him from the charge under Section 406 IPC. During thependency of the said case, the petitioner and respondent no.2 due tothe intervention of common friends etc. amicably resolved all theirissues.

4.Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that thedispute between the parties has been amicably resolved with theintervention of family and common friends. As per the settlement, ithas been agreed that the respondent no.2 has joined the company ofthe petitioner in their matrimonial home and that ever since they havebeen living peacefully without any grievance against each other. It isalso agreed that the respondent no.2 does not want to pursue theproceedings emanating out of the FIR in question. Respondent No.2affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavitdated 11.01.2016 supporting this petition. In the affidavit, therespondent no.2 has stated that she has no objection if the FIR inquestion is quashed. All the disputes and differences have beenresolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitionersurvives 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 petitioner and has settled all the disputes withhim. She further stated that she has no objection if the FIR in questionis 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 and

the 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,particularlythosearisingoutofcommercialtransactions 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 the

causing 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 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 not

compoundable, 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 make

reasonable 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. 726/2007dated 11.10.2007, under Section 498A IPC registered at Police Station

Ambedkar Nagar and the proceedings emanating therefrom arequashed against the petitioner.

15.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE

MARCH 23, 2016dd