CRL.M.C./4964/2015 of SURENDER & ORS Vs THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+CRL.M.C. 4964/2015 & Crl. M.A. 17797/2015

Date of Decision : February 12[th], 2016

SURENDER & ORS..... PetitionersThroughMr. N.K. Gupta, Adv.ThroughMr. N.K. Gupta, Adv.

versus

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR

..... RespondentsThroughMr. Satya Narayan Vashishth, APPfor State alongwith SI Anil Kumar,P.S. Sabji MandiMr. Suraj Prakash, Adv. for R-2alongwith R-2 in person.for State alongwith SI Anil Kumar,P.S. Sabji MandiMr. Suraj Prakash, Adv. for R-2alongwith R-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 filedby the petitioners, namely, Sh. Surender, Smt. Bimla Devi @ VimlaDevi, Smt. Kanta Devi, Sh. Tulsi Ram Sharma @ Babli, Smt. Dolly@ Ram Bhateri and Sh. Jai Prakash @ JP for quashing of FIRNo.73/2012 dated 01.04.2012, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPCregistered at Police Station Subzi Mandi on the basis of the mediationreport of the Delhi Govt. Mediation & Conciliation Centre, DelhiDisputes Resolution Society (Regd.) arrived at between the petitioner

no.1 and respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Vijeta on 24.09.2014.

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 SI Anil Kumar.

3.The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriagebetween the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 was solemnized on16.05.2010. After the reception ceremony, the accused/petitionersstarted harassing the complainant on the point of bringing less dowry.They also taunted the complainant that she did not bring along anygold or silver items with her. Smt. Kanta and Dolly used to instigatethe husband of the complainant on which the husband of thecomplainant used to beat her up. In the month of July, 2010, Smt.Kanta picked up quarrel with the complainant on which Babli, JP,Dolly and Surinder started abusing the complainant in filthy languageand pushed her and gave her beatings. The petitioners alsomisbehaved with the mother of the complainant and they also askedher to take back the complainant and also that Surinder wants todivorce her. The accused-Surinder also used to consume liquor and

used to give beatings to the complainant. On one day, on theinstigation of Kanta, the husband of the complainant held the neck ofthe complainant and pushed her against the wall and thus she receivedsome injuries. One day, Dolly also picked up fight with thecomplainantonwhichDollyslappedthecomplainant.Thecomplainant was also beaten up on 11[th]and 12[th]April 2011. Thecomplainant’s mother then took her along on 12.04.2011 and got hermedically treated. Since then the complainant has been residing withher parents. All the istridhan of the complainant was kept in thecustody of her in-laws and was not returned to her.

Thereafter, the complainant lodged complaint with the policeagainst the accused/petitioners consequent to which the FIR inquestion was registered. All the accused persons were released on bailby the Trial Court. Later on, the parties got their issues settled bymutual consent in the mediation cell.

4.Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that thedispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per themediation report, it has been agreed between the parties that they shalltake divorce by way of mutual consent. It has been agreed that

petitioner no.1 shall pay an amount of Rs. 2 lacs to respondent no.2 asfull and final payment of all her claims, arising out of the matrimonialalliance vis-à-vis maintenance (past, present and future), permanentalimony, jewellery, stridhan, dowry articles etc. It is agreed that theschedule of payment of the aforesaid amount shall be done asenunciated in the mediation report. It is agreed that after making thepayment of the aforesaid amount nothing shall remain due towardspetitioner no.1 and his family members and that respondent no.2 shallnot claim any right over the property of petitioner no.1 in future. It isagreed that they shall not file any case or complaint against each otherpertaining to their marriage before any Forum or Court of law infuture. It is agreed that both parties shall bear their own expendituresfor filing for divorce petition by mutual consent and that they shallcooperate with each other in filing the above mentioned divorcepetition. It is also agreed that they shall not give any cause ofcomplaint to each other and desist themselves from causing anyharassment in any form. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of theaforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 16.10.2015 supportingthis petition. In the affidavit, the respondent no.2 has stated that she

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 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 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 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,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 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; to

avoid the causing of harassment to any person by using the provisionof 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 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 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 quashing

the FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that thefacts 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.73/2012 dated

01.04.2012, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PoliceStation Subzi Mandi the proceedings emanating therefrom arequashed against the petitioners.

15.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

16.Application Crl. M.A. 17797/2015 is also disposed of.

FEBRUARY 12, 2016dd

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE