CRL.M.C./2332/2017 of RIPU DAMAN DHIR & ORS Vs THE STATE & ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+CRL.M.C. 2332/2017

RIPU DAMAN DHIR & ORS

..... Petitioners

ThroughPetitionersinpersonwithMr.Mukesh Sharma, Adv.Mukesh Sharma, Adv.

versus

THE STATE & ANR

..... Respondents

ThroughMr. Hirein Sharma, Addl. PP for Statewith SI Mahesh Singh, PS PandavNagar.Respondent no.2 in person with Mr.Anil Bhargav, Adv.with SI Mahesh Singh, PS PandavNagar.Respondent no.2 in person with Mr.Anil Bhargav, Adv.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLAO R R%30.05.2017

CRL. M.A. 9478/2017 (exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

Application stands disposed off.

CRL.M.C. 2332/2017

By the instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., FIR no.571/2012 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, PS Pandav Nagar, issought to be quashed. IO indentifies the parties, present before theCourt.

Subject FIR is the off-shoot of matrimonial dispute amongstthe petitioners and the respondent no.2.Both the parties state thatthey have arrived at compromise/settlement before Mediation

Centre, Karkardooma Courts.In pursuance of the compromise/settlement arrived at, today, before the Court, demand draftfavouring the complainant-respondent no.2 drawn on Citi Bank forRs.10 Lacs has also come to be handed over to the complainant-respondent no.2.Complainant- respondent No.2 present before theCourt, states that with the receipt of the said payment today, she is leftwith no other claim(s) of any kind whatsoever, against the petitioners.Itisalsojointlystatedthatbutforthesubject,allotheractions/counter actions amongst the parties have already beenwithdrawn. It is also stated that though, the challan is filed, it is stillpending for consideration on charge. Assuming, the charges come tobe framed, with the compromise/ settlement arrived at, it is highlyimprobable that the trial would bear any fruits and the entire exercisein all likelihood would be futile.The off-shoot of the FIR is amatrimonialdisputeandthereby,aprivateone.Withthecompromise/settlement arrived at, not only the respective partieswould get an opportunity to have better recourse for their lives, itshall bring peace and harmony in their families. In Criminal AppealNo. 686/2014 titled Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab &Anr., decided on 27[th]March, 2014, Hon’ble Supreme Court set downthe principles for exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in thefollowing words :

“31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and laydown the following principles by which the High Court wouldbe 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 the

proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with directionto continue with the criminal proceedings:

(I) 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.

(II)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.

(III) Such power is not be exercised in those prosecutionswhich involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravityor offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences arenot private in nature and have serious impact on society.Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed underspecial statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or theoffences committed by Public Servants while working in thatcapacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis ofcompromise between the victim and the offender.

(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelminglyand pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arisingout of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonialrelationship or family disputes should be quashed when theparties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

(V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examineas to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleakand continuation of criminal cases would put the accused togreat oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would becaused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

............................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................”

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, Iam satisfied that the ends of justice would be met with, if, the subjectFIR no. 571/2012 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, PS Pandav Nagarbe quashed alongwith consequential action(s) emanating therefrom.It is ordered accordingly. Petition stands disposed off.

A. K. CHAWLA, J

MAY 30, 2017rc