W.P.(CRL)/2168/2018 of SH. ARJUN DEDHA Vs STATE & ANR.

1. These petitions seek quashing of FIR No.70/2018 Police StationMayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi, which was registered on the complaint of R-2apropos some matrimonial difference between petitioner no. 1 andrespondent no. 2 as arrayed in W.P.(CRL) 2168/2018. The FIR wasregistered under sections 307/34 IPG.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitsthat the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2,consequent upon certain matrimonial and domestic disputes having arisenbetween the parties pursuant to her marriage with the petitioner No.l.However, the parties have settled their disputes by way of Memorandumof Understanding dated 09.07.2018. It is agreed between the parties that

Signature Not Verified

the complainant and the petitioners will live together peacefully andamicably. Consequent thereto, the petitioner No. 1-husband and respondentNo.2-wife in W.P.(CRL) 2168/2018 are cohabiting together as marriedcouple for the last six months. Ms. Nandita Rao, the learned ASC for theState submits that the complainant has specifically stated that she does notwish to pursue her complaint against her in-laws any further. Thecomplainant has been blessed with child and the couple shall make everyendeavour to continue the harmony.

3. Respondent No.2 is present in the Court and has been duly identifiedby the Investigating Officer of the case. She does not dispute thesubmissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits thatshe and petitioner No.l in W.P.(CRL) 2168/2018 are living together happilyas husband and wife as they have resolved all their disputes. She prays thatto restore cordiality amongst the parties, proceedings arising out of FIR inquestion be brought to an end.

4. The learned counsel for the State submits that present case is amatrimonial one and since the respondent No.2 has settled all the disputeswith petitioners and does not wish to pursue the case further against them,no puipose would be served if the petitioners are directed to face trial.Therefore, the State has no objection, if this Court allows the presentpetition.

5. In the aforesaid circumstances and keeping in mind the decision of theSupreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10see 303, holding that even non-compoundable offence can also be

quashed on the ground of settlement agreement between the offender andthe victim, if the circumstances so warrant; by observing as under:

"58 However, certain offences which overwhelmingly andpredominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil,mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such liketransactions or the offences arising out of matrimony,particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute,where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender andthe victim have settled all disputes between them amicably,irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been madecompoundable, the High Court may within the framework ofits inherent power, 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 offender beingconvicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings,justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. "

6. The amicable resolution of cases like the present one is an abidingobjective. The dictum of G/an Singh (supra) has been affirmed by theApex Court in Narinder Singh iSc Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6see 466 while observing:

"29. 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 Section482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashingthe proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement withdirection to 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 inthose cases which are not compoundable, where the parties

have settled the matter between themselves. However, thispower is to he 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

(a) 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 impacton society. 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. On the other hand, those criminal cases havingovei'^helmingly and predominantly civil character,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.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is toexamine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remoteand bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put theaccused to great oppression and prejudice and extremeinjustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminalcases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in thecategory of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to

be generally treated as crime against the society and notagainst the individual alone. However, the High Court wouldnot rest its decision merely because there is mention ofSection 307IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under thisprovision. It woidd be open to the High Court to examine as towhether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sakeof it or the prosecution has collected sujficient evidence, whichif proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court togo by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury isinflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature ofweapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuriessuffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. Onthe basis of this prima facie analysis, the Pligh Court canexamine as to whether there is strong possibility ofconviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak.In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement andquash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case itwould be permissible for the High Court to accept the pleacompounding the offence based on complete settlementbetween the parties. At this stage, the Court can also beswayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties isgoing to result in harmony between them which may improvetheir future relationship.29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power underSection 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play acrucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived atimmediately after the alleged commission of offence and thematter is still under investigation, the High Court may beliberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminalproceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that atthis stage the investigation is still on and even thecharge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases wherethe charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or theevidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can showbenevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but afterprima facie assessment of the circumstances/material

mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecutionevidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of theevidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally theHigh Court should refrain from exercising its power underSection 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court wouldbe in position to decide the case finally on merits and tocome to conclusion as to whether the offence under Section307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases wherethe conviction is already recorded by the trial court and thematter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, merecompromise between the parties would not be ground toaccept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who hasalready been convicted by the trial court. Here charge isproved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is alreadyrecorded of heinous crime and, therefore, there is noquestion of sparing convictfound guilty of such crime. "

7. In similar vein regarding matrimonial disputes the Supreme Court inJitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr. (2013) 4see 58 held:

15. In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encouragegenuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly,when the same are on considerable increase. Even if theoffences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonialdisputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settledthe same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that forthe purpose of securing ends of justice. Section 320 of theCode would not be bar to the exercise of power of quashingof FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.

16. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes inrecent times. They institution of marriage occupies animportant place and it has an important role to play in thesociety. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interestof the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in lifeand live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaultsand terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement

instead of fighting it out in court of law, in order to docomplete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts shouldbe less hesitant in exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction.It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should beexercised sparingly and with circumspection only when theCourt is convinced, on the basis of material on record, thatallowing the proceedings to continue woidd be an abuse ofprocess of court or that the ends of justice require that theproceedings ought to be quashed.... "

8. Since the complainant herself does not wish to pursue her complaintagainst the petitioners, the substratum of the complaint/FIR dissipates andany further proceeding apropos the same FIR would be an exercise infutility. It would therefore be in the interest of justice that the FIR bequashed.

9. Consequently, FIR No.70/20I8, under sections 307/34 IPG, PoliceStation Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi, and all proceedings emanatingtherefrom are hereby quashed against the petitioners.

10. The petitions stand disposed-off in the above terms.

DECEMBER 18, 2018/acm

NAJMi4^ZIRI, J