CRL.M.C./4904/2015 of ASHWANI BINDRA & ORS Vs THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT DELHI) & ANR

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 4904/2015

Date of Decision : May 02[nd], 2016ASHWANI BINDRA & ORS..... PetitionersThroughMr.Gagan Chawla, Adv.

versus

THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) & ANR..... RespondentsThroughMr.Izhar Ahmad, APP for the State.Ms.Neha Dhir, Adv. with Respondentno.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. Ashwani Bindra, Smt. Sudesh Bindra, Sh.Rajesh Mahajan, Smt. Minakshi Mahajan and Ms. Ruchi Bindra forquashing of FIR No.125/2012 dated 14.04.2012, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Saket on the basis of thecompromise deed arrived at between the petitioner no.1 (along withpetitioner nos. 2 & 4 and Mr. Ram Prakash Bindra, hereinafterreferred to as ‘third party’) and respondent no.2, namely, Ms. KanikaBindra @ Kanika Arora on 20.02.2015.2.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-Statesubmitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been

identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in questionby her counsel.

3.The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriagebetween petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 was solemnized on09.09.2000. At the time of the formal marriage, the accused personsdemanded that the parents of the complainant should give heavy giftsincluding Santro car, jewellery and sweets etc. The accused persons onevery festival demanded expensive gifts from the parents of thecomplainant. The complainant was also not permitted to do her furtherstudies and when she insisted she was abused physically by theaccused persons. After some time the complainant was thrown out ofher matrimonial home and when the accused persons came to knowthat the complainant is earning Rs. 22,000/- p.m., they took her back.The husband of the complainant used to plan very expensive trips toforeign countries and made the complainant to spend in lakhs. The lifeof the complainant was made miserable by the accused persons.

Thereafter, the complainant lodged the FIR in question againstthe petitioners. The charge sheet in the case has already been filed.Later, the matter was amicably settled between the parties by way ofcompromise.

4.Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that thedispute between the parties has been amicable resolved. As per thecompromise deed, it has been agreed that petitioner no.1 andrespondent no.2 shall take divorce by way of mutual consent. It isagreed that petitioner no.1 and third party shall jointly pay an amountof Rs. 40 Lakhs by way of DD/pay order/bankers cheque to

respondent no.2 towards full and final settlement of all the past presentand future claims of respondent no.2 including personal articles,jewellery, istridhan, marriage expenses, present, past and futuremaintenance,permanentalimonyinclusiveofalltheexpenses/share/inheritance rights in the present and future and ofminor child (Master Shriyansh) consisting of all the expenses ofupbringing, education, living, present and future maintenance and ofinheritance etc. of said minor child. It is also agreed that the scheduleof payment of the settlement amount shall be as enunciated in theterms of the settlement. It is also agreed that the permanent custody ofthe elder child i.e. Master Rehaan shall exclusively remain with thepetitioner no.1 and that the permanent custody of the younger childshall be with respondent no.2. It is agreed that respondent no.2 hasvoluntarily relinquished and surrendered her visitation and meetingrights in respect of meeting the elder child and that similarly thepetitioner no.1 has relinquished and surrendered his visitation andmeeting rights in respect of meeting the younger child. It is agreed thatnone of the parties shall raise any claim or right or even visitationrights over the respective children in custody of the other party beforeany Court of law or otherwise. It is also agreed that respondent no.2and petitioner no.1 shall be responsible for all the costs of upbringing,education and living of the child in their respective custody and thatthey shall not claim any right or amount whatsoever from the otherparty. It is also agreed that the parties shall cooperate with each otherby presenting the petitions, presenting themselves for making theirstatements under Sections 13(B)(I) & 13(B)(II) HMA.It is alsoagreed that the first joint motion for divorce shall be presented beforethe Court concerned within 15 days of the execution of the presentcompromise deed.It is also agreed that simultaneous to the firstmotion, the parties shall jointly pray before the concerned FamilyCourt for disposing of the custody petition in terms of the presentsettlement. It is also agreed that within 30 days of the first motionbeing allowed the petitioner shall file an application before this Courtin CS(OS) No. 1773/2011 for passing compromise decree in the saidsuit based on the present settlement and that thereafter immediatelywithin week respondent no.2 shall withdraw the complaint case asfiled under Section 12 of DV Act from the concerned Court after thefirst motion of divorce is allowed by the concerned Court. It is alsoagreed that the second motion of divorce shall be moved after theexpiry of the stipulated period of 6 months or as directed by theconcerned Court and the respondent no.2 and petitioner no.1undertake to cooperate with each other by recording their statementsin the second motion of divorce before the concerned matrimonialCourt. It is also agreed that within 15 days of the grant of decree ofdivorce by mutual consent, the respondent no.2 shall fully cooperatewith the petitioner no.1 and that she shall appear in person with hercounsel and make statement before this Court in support of thequashing petition for quashing of the FIR in question. It is agreed thatall the parties shall withdraw all civil/criminal proceedings againsteach other and undertake not to initiate any further civil/criminal caseagainst each other and/or any of their family members in the futurebefore any forum after the complete discharge of the respective

obligations under the present settlement. It is agreed that respondentno.2 confirms and affirms that she has no right, title or interest in anymanner in property bearing no. G-28, Lajpat Nagar, Part-III, NewDelhi-110024 and also that she shall not make any claim in anymanner what so ever in the said property or any other propertiesowned at present or acquired hereafter. It is also agreed thatrespondent no.2 confirms and affirms that property bearing no. G-28,first and second floor with roof rights, Lajpat Nagar, Part-III, NewDelhi-110024 belongs to, owned and is in complete, occupation andpossession of third party. It is also agreed that petitioner no.1 confirmsand affirms that he has no right, title or interest in the propertiesowned at present or in acquired hereafter by respondent no.2. It is alsoagreed that the parties shall if any party has filed any case, complaint,FIR, etc. against the other party or any family members in any Courtof law, police, or any other authority either in New Delhi or any Partof India, which is not in the knowledge of any of the party, then itshall be deemed to be considered as compromised and withdrawn interms of the present compromise deed. It is also agreed that thepresent compromise deed shall not be called in question in future onthe grounds that the parties were not competent to enter into thisagreement or were under any disability etc. It is also agreed that incase either of the parties withdraw from the terms and conditions ofthe comprise deed then the other party shall have the right to takeappropriate legal action before any Court of law with claim ofdamages to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- in addition to amount alreadypaid if any under the present compromise deed. Respondent No.2affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavitdated 24.11.2015 supporting this petition. As per the affidavit filed byrespondent no.2, she has settled all her disputes with the petitionersand has 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 the respondentNo.2 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 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 would

be 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; 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 there

would 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 the

FIR 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 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 the

matrimonial 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.125/2012dated 14.04.2012, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered atPolice Station Saket and the proceedings emanating therefrom arequashed against the petitioners.

15.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

MAY 02, 2016dd

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE