CRL.M.C./4738/2015 of DHEERAJ KUMAR VERMA & ORS Vs THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 4738/2015

Date of Decision : February 12[th], 2016

DHEERAJ KUMAR VERMA & ORS..... PetitionerThrough:Mr.Ajay Wadhwa, Adv.

versus

THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR..... RespondentsThrough:Ms.Manjeet Arya, APP.Mr.Satnam Singh andMr.Sanjay Sharma, Advs. for R-2.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

P.S.TEJI, J.

1.The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filedbythepetitioners,namely,Sh.DheerajKumarVerma,Sh.Chandarjeet, Smt. Rajmati Devi, Sh. Bhooshan Verma, Sh. DevPrashad Verma and Smt. Malti Devi for quashing of FIR No.445/2010dated 14.12.2010, under Sections 498A/34 IPC registered at PoliceStation Mukherjee Nagar on the basis of the compromise arrived at inthe Court of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilbag Singh, Judge –I, FamilyCourt, Rohini District Courts, Delhi between the petitioner no.1 and

respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Rupa Devi on 29.01.2013.

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 ASI Shyam Sunder.

3.The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriagebetween the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 was solemnized on25.09.2009 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The saidmarriage took place without the consent of their parents. After passingof few days, petitioner no.1 informed the complainant/respondentno.2 that his parents would not accept the marriage unless their dowrydemands are met. The petitioner no.1 started pressurizing her to fulfillthe dowry demands of his parents. Later on, the petitioner no.1mentally and physically started torturing the respondent no.2 fordowry to an extent that the complainant was admitted in hospital on06.07.2010. In order to torture the complainant, her in-laws visited herindividually and collectively several times. The accused persons gaveher beatings mercilessly on several occasions. In the first week ofJuly, 2010, the petitioner no.1 left the company of the complainant

and disappeared. The petitioner no.1 intentionally did not join thecompany of the complainant and went underground since 05.08.2010.Left with no other option, the complainant finally went to her parentalhouse.

Subsequently, respondent no.2 filed complaint before theCAW Cell, Delhi against the petitioners which resulted intoregistration of the FIR in question. Later on, due to the intervention ofHon’ble Mr. Justice Dilbag Singh, Judge –I, Family Court, RohiniDistrict Courts, Delhi, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement

4.Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that thedispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per thecompromise, it has been agreed between the parties that they shalltake divorce by way of mutual consent. It has been agreed thatpetitioner no.1 shall pay an amount of Rs. 3 lacs to respondent no.2and that this amount shall also satisfy the execution petition bearingno. Ex. 74/12 pending between the parties. It has been agreed that theschedule of payment of the above mentioned settlement amountwould be as enunciated in the terms of settlement itself. It is agreedthat respondent no.2 shall co-operate in the quashing of the FIR in

question before this Court. It has been agreed that the abovementioned amount of Rs. 3 Lacs shall be as full and final payment ofall claims of respondent no.2, arising out of the matrimonial alliancevis-à-vis maintenance (past, present and future), permanent alimony,jewellery, stridhan, dowry articles etc. as well as satisfaction ofexecution petition. It has been agreed that both parties shall do theirpart required to bring to end all disputes between the parties. It hasbeen agreed by both parties that they shall not initiate any proceedingsagainst each other or their respective family members in the future. Itis agreed that the petitioner no.1 shall not misuse the marriagecertificate and photographs of respondent no.2 in any mannerwhatsoever. It has further been stated that no other cases are pendingbetween them except the ones mentioned above. Respondent No.2affirms the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavitdated 04.11.2015 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 petitionerssurvives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be

brought 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 Apex

Court 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 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 inthe affirmative, the High Court shall be well withinits jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”

6.The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in

recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC

466. 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 and

exercising 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 inthe Court to compound the offences under Section320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of theCode, 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 thoseprosecutions which involve heinous and seriousoffences of mental depravity or offences like murder,rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private innatureandhaveaseriousimpactonsociety.Similarly, for the offences alleged to have beencommitted under special statute like the Prevention ofCorruption Act or the offences committed by publicservants while working in that capacity are not to bequashed merely on the basis of compromise betweenthe victim and the offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases havingoverwhelmingly and predominantly civil character,particularlythosearisingoutofcommercial

transactions 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 to

prevent 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; toavoid 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 ofjustice.Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised tocircumvent the express 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 beexercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when theCourt comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injusticeor there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power isnot exercised, 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 and

energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in

entering 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 theexercise of powers underSection 482 Cr.P.C. to quash theproceedings 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 quashingthe FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied 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 toget redressal. In its 59[th]report, the Law Commission of India hademphasized that while dealing with disputes concerning the family,the Court 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.445/2010dated 14.12.2010, under Sections 498A/34 IPC registered at Police

Station Mukherjee Nagar the proceedings emanating therefrom are

quashed against the petitioners.

15.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

FEBRUARY 12, 2016dd

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE