CRL.M.C./3481/2015 of SALMA BEGUM & ORS Vs THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+CRL.M.C. 3481/2015

Date of Decision : March 11[th], 2016

SALMA BEGUM & ORS

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr.Mobin Akhtar, Adv.

versus

THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS ..... Respondent

ThroughMr.Amit Chadha, APP with SI PankajGupta, PS Jamia Nagar.Mr.M. Hasibuddin, Adv. for R-2 withrespondent no.2 & 3 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, Smt. Salma Begum, Sh.Mohd. Hasim andSh.Mohd. Rizwan for quashing of FIR No.308/2009 dated 14.10.2009,under Sections 307/323/498-A/506/34 IPC registered at Police StationJamia Nagar on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding(MOU) arrived at between petitioners along with Mohd. Ilyas andrespondent no.2 & respondent no.3, namely, Sh. Mohd. Yahya andSmt. Reshma Begum, respectively, on 23.08.2015 at New Delhi.2.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-Statesubmitted that the respondent No.3, present in the Court has been

identified to be the complainant/first-informant in the FIR in questionby SI Jagsharan.

3.The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriagebetween respondent no.2 and respondent no.3 was solemnized on14.05.2006 according to Muslim rites and ceremonies. With thepassage of time, the mother-in-law and the brother-in-law of thecomplainant started to pressurize the respondent no.2 to divorce therespondent no.3 for not bringing Rs. 1 lacs cash from her parents. Themother-in-law of the complainant made demand of Rs. 1 lacs and aSantro car from her otherwise she told her that she would not beallowed in the matrimonial home. The complainant asked her in-lawsnot to interfere with her married life, on which she was beaten up byher mother-in-law. Mohd. Hashim also threatened the respondent no.2to leave the house with his wife. He gave beatings to the respondentno.2 and the mother-in-law of the complainant caught hold of her hairand gave her kick in the abdomen. On 07.09.2009, the brother-in-law of the complainant dragged her in room and told her that todayhe will kill her. The complainant tried to run away but her mother-in-law gave mug of kerosene oil to the Jamil and Jamil poured the oilon the complainant and threw match stick on her body. Then, Mohd.Hashim set her on fire due to which the complainant suffered fromburn injuries.

Thereafter, the complainant/respondent no.3 lodged complaintunder Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. On the direction of the Ld. MM, the FIRin question was registered. The petitioners were granted anticipatorybail by this Court. After the completion of the investigation, final

report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed. The charges under Section498-A/307/323/506/34 IPC were framed against the petitioners. Lateron, with the intervention of family, neighbours and friends etc. theparties arrived at an amicable settlement and resolved their issues.

4.Respondent No.3, present in the Court, submitted that thedispute between the parties has been amicably resolved with theintervention of family, neighbours and friends. As per the MOU, Sh.Mohd. Ilyas, agreed to withdraw his public notice dated 11.09.2009regarding disowning the respondent nos.2 & 3 from all his movableand immovable properties vide public notice dated 14.08.2015 inRashtriya Sahara Hindi Newspaper. It is also agreed that Mohd. Ilyasand petitioner no. 2, as decided, have given separate flat bearing no.C-161, measuring 80 sq. yards situated at 4[th]Floor, Abul FazalEnclave Part-II, Shaheen Bagh, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-110025 tothe respondent nos. 2 & 3, so that respondent nos. 2 & 3 can livepeacefully along with their children. It is also agreed that respondentnos. 2 & 3 are residing in the said flat and that the documents of thesaid flat were executed by the petitioner no.1 in favour of respondentnos. 2 & 3 jointly. It is further agreed that Sh. Mohd. Ilyas hastransferred the complete share of property which is lying in Delhi andhere onwards the respondent nos. 2 & 3 individually and jointly shallnot claim any right or title over the property lying in Delhi in the nameof Sh. Mohd. Ilyas and the petitioners. It is also agreed that Sh. Mohd.Ilyas and the petitioners have also given another plot admeasuring 100sq. yards from 200 sq. yards of plot which is part of Khasra No.961/840 situated at village Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi-110076 to

respondent nos. 2 & 3 and that the documents in that regard were alsoexecuted in favour of respondent nos. 2 & 3 jointly. It is also agreedthat the Sh. Mohd. Ilyas has also given his undertaking that respondentno.2 shall also get right in his ancestral property as per law. It isfurther agreed that the respondent no.3 being the complainant in theFIR in question shall give her consent to get the FIR in questionquashed along with the proceedings emanating therefrom to bringpeace and harmony in her matrimonial life. It is further agreed thatrespondent nos. 2 & 3 shall standby with Mohd. Ilyas and thepetitioners in all aspects of their respective lives and that both partiesshall forget about their past and live peacefully in the future.Respondent Nos.2 & 3 affirmed the contents of the aforesaidsettlement and of their affidavits dated 24.08.2015 supporting thispetition. In the affidavits, respondent nos. 2 & 3 have stated that theyhave no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. All the disputesand differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now nodispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out ofthe FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of respondentNo.3 has been recorded in this regard in which she stated that she hasentered into compromise with the petitioners and has settled all thedisputes with them. She further stated that she has no objection if theFIR 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 consider

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,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 nos.2 & 3 agreed to the quashing of the FIR inquestion without any threat or coercion or undue influence and havestated that the matter has been settled out of their own free will. As thematter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would bean extraordinary 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 provision

of 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 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 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 offences under Section 498-A/307 IPCare non-compoundable offences, there should be no impediment inquashing the FIR under these sections, if the Court is otherwisesatisfied that the facts and 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 to

get 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.In the present case, Section 307 IPC was added in the FIR andthe charge sheet dated 27.12.2011 as it was alleged that the mother-in-law and the brother-in-law of the complainant tried to kill thecomplainant by pouring kerosene oil on her and putting her on fire.Perusal of the charge sheet shows that the nature of injuries have beenopined to be ‘simple’ in nature. Thus, Section 307 IPC was added notdue to the nature of injuries but due to circumstances endangering thelife of the complainant.

13.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.

14.In the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of statementmade by the respondent No.3 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.

15.Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.308/2009dated14.10.2009,underSections307/323/498-A/506/34IPCregistered at Police Station Jamia Nagar and the proceedingsemanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.

16.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

MARCH 11, 2016dd

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE