CRL.M.C./707/2016 of GAURAV RAHEJA & ORS Vs THE STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 707/2016

Date of Decision: May 25[th], 2016GAURAV RAHEJA & ORS.... PetitionersThroughMr.Bharat Bagga, Adv.

versus

THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR .... RespondentsThroughMr.Amit Chadha, APP for the State.SI Arvind Kumar, CAW Cell/East.Mr.L.P. Luthra, 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 petitioner, namely, Sh. Gaurav Raheja, Sh. Vikram Raheja andSmt. Chander Wati Raheja for quashing of FIR No.145/2013 dated12.03.2013, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PoliceStationVivekViharonthebasisoftheMemorandumofunderstanding in view of the settlement arrived at between petitionerno.1 and respondent no.2, Smt. Monika Raheja on 16.05.2014.

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 in the FIR in questionby her counsel.

3.The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriagebetween the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 was solemnizedon 01.12.2011. The complainant’s in-laws weren’t satisfied with the

dowry brought by the complainant. The complainant was taunted forbringing in less dowry and her family members were insulted onseveral occasions by the in-laws of the complaint. On 10.12.2011,petitioner no.1 left for U.K. and on 29.12.2011 respondent no.2 joinedhis company. On 15.04.2012, the complainant’s husband slapped thecomplainant and got violent when the complainant refused to give hersalary to him. The landlord upon hearing the commotion informed thePolice and told the Police that he had witnessed the complainant’shusband slapping the complainant. Upon coming to India, on29.05.2012, the complainant was again abused upon which thecomplainant’s uncle called the Police.

Thereafter, respondent no.2/complainant lodged complaintwhich resulted into the registration of the FIR in question against thepetitioners.Subsequently,thepartiesarrivedatanamicablesettlement.

4.Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that thedispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per theMOU, it is agreed between the parties that they shall take divorce byway of mutual consent and that they shall file joint petitions underSection 13(B)(1) & 13(B)(2) of H.M.A at Family Court. It is alsoagreed that petitioner no. 1 shall pay sum of RS. 7.5 Lakhs in total torespondent no.2 towards full and final settlement of all her claimstowards istridhan, permanent alimony and maintenance past, presentand future and other expenses out of which Rs. 5 Lakhs have alreadybeen deposited by petitioner no.1 before this Court. It is agreed thatthe balance amount of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs shall be paid in three installments

in the manner enunciated in the terms of the MOU. It is also agreedthat out of the sum of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs, Rs. 75,000/- shall be paid at thetime of recording of statement before this Court for quashing of theFIR in question. It is also agreed that the respondent no.2 shallwithdraw her complaint case under Section 12 D.V. Act filed beforefiling of Second motion petition in divorce by mutual consent and inthe event of non-cooperation found on her part, the Ld. Court may berequested to pass any appropriate order of treating the same aswithdrawn. It is also agreed that the respondent no.2 has alreadyreceived her articles from petitioner no.1 in the presence of herrelatives before the CAW cell as per seizure memo. It is also agreedthat the petitioner no.1 shall withdraw his complain in U.K. beforepolice for which he shall move an appropriate application after filingof first motion and shall give copy of the said application withendorsement by the concerned authorities to respondent no.2 beforethe filing of the second motion. It is also agreed that the parties shallwithdraw all cases/complaint/petition, if any and further agreed to notfile any case/compliant/suit against each other and their familymembers in future before any court of law or any authority. It is alsoagreed that the on receipt of the aforesaid payment and compliance ofthe terms of the MOU, both parties shall be left with no claims, rightsor interests whatsoever against each other in respect of any assets,movable or immovable owned or possessed by them or to be owned orpossessed by them or their family members at any point. It is alsoagreed that the parties shall not claim anything from each other ortheir family members. It is also agreed that parties shall not interfere

in each other’s lives and that they shall live independently. It is alsoagreed that if petitioner no.1 breaches any term of the said agreementor does not turn up to give his statement in the second motion and/orquashing petition then the petitioner no.1 shall pay an amount of Rs.7.5 Lakhs in addition to the amount already paid i.e. 6 Lakhs torespondent no.2 and respondent no.2 shall be at liberty to pray fordivorce before the Court and incase if respondent no.2 breaches anyterm of the said agreement or does not turn up to give her statement inthe second motion and/or quashing petition then the petitioner no.1shall be at liberty to recover an amount of Rs. 7.5 Lakhs in addition tothe amount already paid i.e. 6 Lakhs to respondent no.2 and also heshall be at liberty to pray for divorce before the Court. It is also agreedthat if any of the parties have already initiated any proceedings whichhave not been mentioned, the same shall be deemed to have beenwithdrawn. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaidsettlement. All the disputes and differences have been resolvedthrough mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives andso, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to anend. Statement of respondent no.2 has been recorded in this regard inwhich she stated that she has entered into compromise with thepetitioners and has settled all the disputes with them. She furtherstated that she has no objection if the FIR 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 no.2 agreed 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 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 tranquility 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 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 overburdened 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 and

proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.

14.Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.145/2013dated 12.03.2013, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered atPolice Station Vivek Vihar and the proceedings emanating therefromare quashed against the petitioners.

15.This petition is accordingly disposed of.

May 25, 2016

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE