CRL.M.C./4171/2015 of SONU GAUTAM & ORS Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 4171/2015

Date of Decision : March 18[th], 2016SONU GAUTAM & ORS..... PetitionersThroughMr.Vikas Padora, Adv.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR..... RespondentsThroughMr.M.P. Singh, APP for the Statewith SI Jagmeshwar Dayal, NanakPura.Ms.Saroj, 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. Sonu Gautam, Sh. Padam Singh, Smt.Sheela, Sh. Sunny Gautam, Smt. Divya and Sh. Laxmi for quashing ofFIR No. 22/2011 dated 21.02.2011, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPCregistered at Police Station Crime (Women) Cell on the basis of themediation report, Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini District Courts,Delhi arrived at between the petitioner no.2/father of petitioner no.1and respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Saroj on 28.05.2012.

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 question

by her counsel.

3.The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriagebetween the petitioner and the respondent no.2 was solemnized on04.11.2006 as per Hindu rites and customs. Just one week after themarriage, the mother-in-law of the complainant took all her jewellerythat her parents had given her in marriage. The complainant was madeto do all house hold chores and was not even given enough food. On27.10.2007, the husband of the complainant suffered an accident andall the expenses for his treatment were borne by the parents of thecomplainant. The accused persons used to threaten the complainantthat if her parents do not fulfill their demands, she will suffer at theirhands.Thereafter,thecomplainantbecamepregnantandon25.03.2007, on an argument, the mother-in-law and the sister-in-lawof the complainant hit her on the stomach due to which she lost herchild. Then the complainant gave birth on 18.05.2008 and has beenliving at her parents house since last 4-5 months.

The respondent no.2/complainant lodged the FIR in questionagainst the petitioners. Later on, both the parties compromised theirmatter with each other.

4.Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that thedispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per themediation report, it is agreed that the petitioner no.1 and respondentno.2 shall take divorce by way of mutual consent without levelingallegations and counter allegations against each other in accordancewith law before the competent jurisdiction at Delhi. It is also agreedthat the parties have settled the dispute without any consideration

which include all claims of respondent no.2 i.e. past, present andfuture arising out of the marriage along with permanent alimony,maintenance, istridhan and other miscellaneous expenses. It is alsoagreed that the first motion petition under Section 13-B(1) of theH.M.A. has already been filed by the petitioner nos. 1& 2 and that theparties shall cooperate with each other in finalizing the same. It is alsoagreed that the second motion petition under Section 13-B(2) of theH.M.A. shall be filed by the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 within the stipulatedperiod and it is agreed that the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 shall cooperatewith each other in finalizing the same.It is also agreed that thepetitioner no.1 shall handover the list of articles as enunciated in themediation report. It is also agreed that at the time of the recording ofthe statements during the second motion petition under Section 13-B(2) of the H.M.A., the respondent no.2 shall hand over the permanentcustody of the minor son to petitioner no.1. It is also agreed that therespondent no.2 shall have visitation rights with regard to her childand that she shall be at liberty to meet with her child once month onthe last Monday of every month at public place for two hours withprior intimation to petitioner no.1. It is also agreed that within onemonth of after filing the second motion petition, petitioner no.1 shallfile the petition for quashing of the FIR in question before this Courtand that the respondent no.2 shall cooperate for the same. It is alsoagreed that there shall remain no claim/dispute due between thepetitioner nos. 1 & 2 arising out of the said marriage and that none ofthe parties shall file any civil or criminal proceedings against eachother in future and that if any case/complaint etc is pending before any

Court or Authority, the same shall be withdrawn/got disposed of bythe respective party. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of theaforesaid settlement. 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 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 adequateand lay down the following principles by which theHigh Court would be guided in giving adequate

treatment 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 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 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 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 very

important 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. 22/2011 dated21.02.2011, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PoliceStation Crime (Women) and the proceedings emanating therefrom arequashed against the petitioners.

15.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

MARCH 18, 2016

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE