W.P.(CRL)/1712/2017 of SMT. KAMLA ARORA & ORS Vs THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+W.P.(CRL) 1712/2017

SMT. KAMLA ARORA & ORS

..... Petitioners

ThroughMr.L.K. Singh, Adv.

versus

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR..... RespondentsThroughMr.Sanjay Lao, ASC withMr.Siddharth Sindhu, Adv.SI Deepak Pandey PS Preet Vihar

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMARO R R%30.05.2017

Crl.M.A. 9481/2017

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(Crl.) 1712/2017

The petitioners have sought quashing of the FIR No.279/2011 dated01.10.2011 (PS Preet Vihar) instituted for the offences under sections323/341/342/406/34 of the IPC.

The complainant/respondent no.2 is the daughter-in-law of petitionerno.1.The husband of respondent no.2, Mukesh Arora, died in the year2011. He was involved in the family business of the petitioners. Petitionernos.2 & 4 are the sons of petitioner no.1 whereas petitioner nos.3 & 5 are thedaughter-in-laws of petitioner no.1. It has been submitted that civil suit

vide CS No. 164/2011 (new No.2098/2016) had also been filed by petitionerno.1 against respondent no.2 seeking partition of the estate left behind byher late husband. The respondent no.2 also had filed an application undersection 12 of the Domestic Violence Act against the petitioners. During thependency of the aforesaid proceedings, settlement was arrived at betweenthe parties and respondent no.2 agreed to accept Rs.27 lakhs towards fulland final settlement of all her claims arising out of and in relation to hermarriage with son of the family and her legal status as daughter-in-law ofpetitioner no.1.

As part of the settlement/arrangement, the complaint under section 12of the Domestic Violence Act was withdrawn by respondent no.2. The civilsuit filed by petitioner no.1 has been decreed in terms of the settlementbetween the parties. The petitioners have paid to respondent no.2 an amountof Rs.17 lakhs uptil now, which assertion has been affirmed by respondentno.2 who is present in Court today. The petitioners have paid an amount ofRs.10 lakhs by way of 3 Demand Drafts vide DD Nos. 000119 and 000118dated 18.05.2017 for Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively issued byHDFC Bank, Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi; and DD No.114237 dated18.05.2017 for Rs.5,00,000/- issued by Indian Overseas Bank, Preet Vihar,Delhi and cash of Rs.2 lakhs. The aforesaid amount has been accepted byrespondent no.2 in Court in the presence of her counsel and to hersatisfaction.

The parties have been identified by their respective counsels.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also stated that oneof the terms of the agreement is that after the amount so settled would beaccepted by respondent no.2, she would render all co-operation in getting

the subject FIR quashed.

Taking into account the aforesaid facts namely, death of the husbandof respondent no.2 whereafter some dispute arose between the parties andfinal settlement of all disputes culminating in payment of lump sumamount to respondent no.2 in lieu of all her claims in the capacity ofdaughter-in-law of the house, this Court deems it expedient not to permitany further investigation in the subject FIR.

For the reasons stated aforesaid, this Court has been persuaded toquash the subject FIR.

In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303,the Supreme Court has held that cases which are not compoundable underSection 320 of the Cr.P.C. could also be quashed, when continuation of anycriminal proceeding would be an exercise in futility and where justicedemands that the dispute between the parties should be put to an end andpeace is restored. But ending of such criminal proceedings could only beordered for securing the ends of justice.

The Supreme Court has further observed in Gian Singh vs. State ofPunjab & Another (Supra):

“58............................ No doubt, crimes are acts whichhave harmful effect on the public and consist inwrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens thewell-being of the society and it is not safe to leave thecrime-doer only because he and the victim have settledthe dispute amicably or that the victim has been paidcompensation, yet certain crimes have been madecompoundable in law, with or without the permission ofthe court. In respect of serious offences like murder,rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravityunder IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special

statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or theoffences committed by public servants while working inthat capacity, the settlement between the offender andthe victim can have no legal sanction at all. However,certainoffenceswhichoverwhelminglyandpredominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out ofcivil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership orsuch like transactions or the offences arising out ofmatrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or thefamily dispute, where the wrong is basically to thevictim and the offender and the victim have settled alldisputes between them amicably, irrespective of the factthat such offences have not been made compoundable,the High Court may within the framework of its inherentpower, quash the criminal proceeding or criminalcomplaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of suchsettlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offenderbeing convicted and by not quashing the criminalproceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justiceshall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and notexhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts andno hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.”[Refer to B.S. Joshi, (2003) 4 SCC 675; NikhilMerchant, (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma,(2008) 16 SCC 1.]

For the aforesaid facts, the FIR No.279/2011 dated 01.10.2011 (PSPreet Vihar) instituted for the offences under sections 323/341/342/406/34of the IPC and all other proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.The petition is disposed of in terms of the above.

MAY 30, 2017ab

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J