ANKUR GARG AND ORS vs. STATE AND ANR

$~55
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

th
Judgment delivered on: 28 September, 2015

+ CRL.M.C. 4021/2015
ANKUR GARG AND ORS
..... Petitioners
Represented by: Mr. Vinay Ranjan, Adv. with
petitioner No.1 and 2 in
person.
versus
STATE AND ANR
..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan,
APP for the State with SI
Janak Singh, P.S. New
Friends Colony.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

Crl. M.A.No.14300/2015 (for exemption)
Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
CRL.M.C. 4021/2015

1. Vide the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.255/2012
registered at Police Station New Friends Colony, Delhi, for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and the consequential
proceedings emanating therefrom against them.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that
Crl.M.C. No.4021/2015 Page 1 of 8


due to some matrimonial disputes, the respondent No.2 made complaint
against the petitioners accordingly the said complaint culminating into the
case mentioned above. Thereafter the petitioners and respondent No.2
th
have amicably settled their disputes vide settlement dated 30 September,
2014 whereby the petitioners agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs in
favour of respondent No.2. Accordingly an amount of Rs.7 lakh was paid
th th
on 28 November, 2014 and an amount of Rs. 7 lakh was paid on 25
July, 2015. The balance amount of Rs. 6 lakh has been paid today to
respondent No.2 in court by way of Banker’s cheque No. 716467 dated
th
24 September, 2015 drawn on SBI, Shakur Basti, Delhi. Learned
th
counsel submits that pursuant to the Settlement dated 30 September,
2014, marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has been
th
dissolved by decree of divorce dated 25 July, 2015, thus respondent No.2
does not want to pursue the case further against the petitioners.
3. Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court alongwith her
counsel named above and she has been duly identified by the SI Janak
Singh, P.S. New Friends Colony. The learned counsel under instructions
does not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioners and submits that the present matter has been amicably settled,
marriage between the respondent No.2 and the petitioner No.1 has been
th
dissolved vide decree of divorce dated 25 July, 2015, she has received
the total amount of Rs. 20 lakhs, thus, has no objection if the present
petition is allowed.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
State submits that charge-sheet has been filed, however, charges are yet to
be framed. The case is at the initial stage of trial and since the petitioners
Crl.M.C. No.4021/2015 Page 2 of 8


have settled their disputes amicably and respondent No.2 does not wish to
pursue the case further against petitioners, no purpose would be served if
the petitioners are directed to face trial. Therefore, the State has no
objection, if the present petition is allowed.
5. In view of the overall circumstances; and looking to the
pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab
and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , which has referred to a number of
matters for the proposition that even a non-compoundable offence can
also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the
offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant; and also
Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., ( 2014) 6 SCC 466 ,
wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:-
“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and
lay down the following principles by which the High
Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to
the settlement between the parties and exercising its
power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the
settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to
accept the settlement with direction to continue with the
criminal proceedings:

29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is
to be distinguished from the power which lies in the
Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the
Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High
Court has inherent power to quash the criminal
proceedings even in those cases which are not
compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter
between themselves. However, this power is to be
exercised sparingly and with caution.

Crl.M.C. No.4021/2015 Page 3 of 8

Crl.M.C. No.4021/2015 Page 4 of 8


and not against the individual alone. However, the High
Court would not rest its decision merely because there is
a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is
framed under this provision. It would be open to the
High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of
Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the
prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if
proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section
307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High
Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether
such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the
body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in
respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be
the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie
analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether
there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances
of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it
can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the
criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would
be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea
compounding the offence based on complete settlement
between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be
swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties
is going to result in harmony between them which may
improve their future relationship.

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under
Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play
a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is
arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of
offence and the matter is still under investigation, the
High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to
quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is
because of the reason that at this stage the investigation
is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed.
Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the
evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy
stage, the High Court can show benevolence in
exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie
assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned
Crl.M.C. No.4021/2015 Page 5 of 8


above. On the other hand, where the prosecution
evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the
evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally
the High Court should refrain from exercising its power
under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial
court would be in a position to decide the case finally on
merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the
offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not.
Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already
recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the
appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise
between the parties would not be a ground to accept the
same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has
already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is
proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already
recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no
question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a
crime.”

6. In the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. Vs. Babita
Raghuvanshi & Anr., (2013) 4 SCC 58 , the Full Bench of the Supreme
Court in respect of the matrimonial disputes has specifically held as
follows:-
“15. In our view, it is the duty of the courts to
encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes,
particularly, when the same are on considerable
increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if
they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is
satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably
and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose
of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code
would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing
of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal
proceedings.

16. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes
in recent times. They institution of marriage occupies
an important place and it has an important role to play
Crl.M.C. No.4021/2015 Page 6 of 8


in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in
the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to
settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties
ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes
amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out
in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the
matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant
in exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite
to state that the power under Section 482 should be
exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when
the Court is convinced, on the basis of material on
record, that allowing the proceedings to continue
would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends
of justice require that the proceedings ought to be
quashed….”

7. Both the parties who are present in the Court today, approbate the
aforesaid settlement dated 02.08.2014 and undertake to remain bound by
the same.
8. Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial,
which now stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties and
the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution
because of which, its chances of success in the matter are now greatly
diminished. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh (supra), Narinder Singh
(supra) and Jitendra Raghuvanshi (supra) and in the facts and
circumstances as noted above, I am of the considered opinion that this
matter deserves to be given a quietus as continuance of proceedings
arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.
9. Consequently, FIR No.255/2012 registered at Police Station New
Friends Colony, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections
Crl.M.C. No.4021/2015 Page 7 of 8


498A/406/34 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby
quashed qua the petitioners.
10. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed with no order
as to costs.

SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 28, 2015
nk

Crl.M.C. No.4021/2015 Page 8 of 8