Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4160/2015 & Crl. M.A. Nos. 14918/2015 & 15759/2015
th
Date of Decision: May 06 , 2016
RAMANDEEP SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through Dr. Sarbjit Sharma,
Ms. Shridhika Verma,
Ms. Pariksha and Ms. Sukirati, Advs.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP.
SI Amar Singh, PS: Vikas Puri.
Mr. Mahesh Singh, Adv. for
Complainant.
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 by
the petitioners, namely, Sh. Ramandeep Singh, Sh. Gurvinder Singh
Kohli, Smt. Harjeet Kaur and Sh. Hardeep Singh for quashing of FIR
No.845/2014 dated 24.10.2014, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC
registered at Police Station Vikaspuri on the basis of the settlement
agreement executed between petitioner no.1 and respondent No.2,
namely, Smt. Manpreet Kaur on 20.08.2015.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
Crl.M.C. 4160/2015 Page 1 of 11
submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been
identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question
by her counsel.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage was
solemnized between petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 on
07.04.2012 as per Sikh rites and ceremony at Delhi. After the
marriage, the accused persons started to harass the complainant and
used to compel her to bring Rs. 20 lacs in cash from her parents. The
complainant was also compelled to ask her parents for a Honda Car.
On 19.05.2012, the complainant was beaten up by her husband at the
instance of the other accused persons. The parents of the complainant
then gave some expensive gifts to the in-laws of the complainant but
her in-laws threw all the gifts saying that they were all substandard.
Then, in the month of March, 2013, the accused persons threw the
complainant out of the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the matter was
settled and the complainant again started living at her matrimonial
home from 10.05.2013. On 05.01.2014, on the birthday of the
petitioner no.1, the parents of the complainant gave gifts but petitioner
no.1 insulted them. The husband of the complainant also compelled
her to buy Mohindra XUV 500 on installments after taking loan. The
mother-in-law of the complainant had taken away all her jewellery
that she received from her parents.
Thereafter, the complainant got lodged a complaint with the
CAW cell, Kirti Nagar which resulted into registration of the FIR in
question against the petitioners. Respondent no.2 also filed for divorce
under Section 13 (1) (ia) HMA against the petitioner no.1. During the
Crl.M.C. 4160/2015 Page 2 of 11
pendency of the same, both the parties to the petition mutually settled
all their matrimonial disputes amicably.
4. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the
dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the
settlement agreement, it is agreed that petitioner no.1 and respondent
no.2 shall take divorce by way of mutual consent and that the divorce
petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act pending
adjudication before the Family Court(West District), Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi shall be withdrawn or amended to this effect with the
leave of the Family Court. It is also agreed that respondent no.2 has
settled the matter with the petitioner no.1 for return of 4 gold
ornaments as explained in the terms of the settlement. It is also agreed
that the said gold ornaments have been shown to the respondent no.2
and that they shall be returned to her by petitioner no.1 at the time of
recording of statement of first motion. It is also agreed that the
petitioner no.1 shall pay an amount of Rs.21 Lacs apart from the 4
gold ornaments to respondent no.2 in full and final settlement of all
her claims of istridhan, maintenance (past, present and future). It is
also agreed that the petitioner no.1 shall make all arrangements for
obtaining a NOC and no dues certificate from the ICICI Bank, in
respect of one Mahindra XUV 500 vehicle bearing Registration
no.HR-26-CH-2444, which was financed by the said Bank in favour of
the respondent no.2 on the behest of petitioner no.1. It is also agreed
that the said no dues certificate shall be arranged and handed over to
the respondent no.2 by petitioner no.1 any time between first and
second motion period of divorce proceedings by mutual consent. It is
Crl.M.C. 4160/2015 Page 3 of 11
also agreed that petitioner no.1 shall make arrangements for getting
the Insurance and the RC of the said vehicle transferred in his own
name, thereby discharging and absolving the respondent no.2 of all or
any claims, risks, liabilities, etc. in respect of the said vehicle. It is
also agreed that neither party shall have any claim against each other
after divorce is granted and that respondent no.2 shall appear before
this Court and would file her affidavit of consent for quashing the FIR
in question. It is also agreed that the quashing petition shall be filed by
the petitioner no.1 before this Court after recording of the statements
in the first motion. It is also agreed that neither party shall lodge any
either civil or criminal case against each other provided both the
parties abide by all the terms and conditions of the mutual settlement.
It is also agreed that the petitioner no.1 has agreed that he shall take all
necessary steps, so that no liabilities, dues or claims etc. in respect of a
rented shop, run in the name and style of “Kohli Furniture” situated at
Badshahpur, Sohna Road, in Gurgaon, may fall upon the respondent
no.2 and the rent agreement shall be got transferred in the name of the
petitioner no.1 immediately because it is presently standing in the
name of the respondent no.2. It is also agreed that no liabilities, dues
or claims etc. in respect of the one rented farmhouse, situated at Gwal
Pahari at Gurgaon-Faridabad at which the petitioner no.1 is residing,
may fall upon the respondent no.2. It is also agreed that the no
telephone bill, electricity bill, water bill, Vodafone and internet bill in
respect of the telephone no. 7838512345 will be raised against the
respondent no.2 or if any such claims, dues or liabilities, which may
arise in the future, they shall be borne by petitioner no.1. It is also
Crl.M.C. 4160/2015 Page 4 of 11
agreed that petitioner no.1 shall take necessary to get the said
Vodafone connection, transferred in his name or get it disconnected. It
is also agreed that if any contracts, agreements, deeds or other
instruments, or any documents of loan of guarantee for such, loan,
which may have been signed by the respondent no.2 during the period
of her matrimonial relationship with petitioner no.1, petitioner no.1
shall take steps to get the said documents rescinded/terminated and the
respondent no.2 shall not be liable in any manner, whatsoever, in
future. It is also agreed that if any bank documents like cheque books,
passbooks or statements of accounts belonging to respondent no.2 are
in custody of petitioner no.1, the same shall not be misused by
petitioner no.1. It is also agreed all joint bank accounts standing in the
name of petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 shall be closed and if any
dues or installments are showing in the statements account of the
respective banks, the petitioner no.1 shall clear all such dues or loans
etc. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid
settlement. All the disputes and differences have been resolved
through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives and
so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an
end. Statement of the respondent No.2 has been recorded in this regard
in which she stated that she has entered into a compromise with the
petitioners and has settled all the disputes with them. She further
stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in
cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
Crl.M.C. 4160/2015 Page 5 of 11
“61. In other words, the High Court must consider
whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice
to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of
criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of
law despite settlement and compromise between the victim
and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it
is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the
answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High
Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceedings.”
6. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a
recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC
466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh
(Supra) are as under:-
“ 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.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that
basis 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 an
opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
Crl.M.C. 4160/2015 Page 6 of 11
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions
which involve heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such
offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on
society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been
committed under special statute like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants
while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on
the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character,
particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or
arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes
should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire
disputes among themselves.
7. The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised to
prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
The respondent no.2 agrees to the quashing of the FIR in question
without any threat or coercion or undue influence and has stated that
the matter has been settled out of her own free will. As the matter has
been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be an
extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal proceedings
between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the considered
opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the
ends 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 is
abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured; where
Crl.M.C. 4160/2015 Page 7 of 11
the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid the
causing 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 the
express provisions of law.
9. It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram
Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case of
Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009
has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Court
comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there
would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not
exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.
10. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced
that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not
affect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of
such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace
and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them.
In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and
energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in
entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is
compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S.
Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675
the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of
Crl.M.C. 4160/2015 Page 8 of 11
Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not
compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of
securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary,
section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of
quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon’ble Apex Court justified the
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the
proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts
and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non-
compoundable.
In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that
notwithstanding the fact the offence under Section 498A IPC is a non-
compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing the
FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts
and circumstances of the case so warrant.
11. The Courts in India are now normally taking the view that
endeavour should be taken to promote conciliation and secure speedy
settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs such as,
matrimonial disputes between the couple or/and between the wife and
her in-laws. India being a vast country naturally has large number of
married persons resulting into high numbers of matrimonial disputes
due to differences in temperament, life-styles, opinions, thoughts etc.
between such couples, due to which majority is coming to the Court to
th
get redressal. In its 59 report, the Law Commission of India had
emphasized that while dealing with disputes concerning the family, the
Court ought to adopt an approach radically different from that
Crl.M.C. 4160/2015 Page 9 of 11
adopted in ordinary civil proceedings and that it should make
reasonable efforts at settlement before the commencement of the trial.
Further it is also the constitutional mandate for speedy disposal of
such disputes and to grant quick justice to the litigants. But, our
Courts are already over burdened due to pendency of large number of
cases because of which it becomes difficult for speedy disposal of
matrimonial disputes alone. As the matrimonial disputes are mainly
between the husband and the wife and personal matters are involved
in such disputes, so, it requires conciliatory procedure to bring a
settlement between them. Nowadays, mediation has played a very
important role in settling the disputes, especially, matrimonial
disputes and has yielded good results. The Court must exercise its
inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to put an end to the
matrimonial litigations at the earliest so that the parties can live
peacefully.
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 in
question would be an exercise in futility and is a fit case for this Court
to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.
13. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of statement
made by the respondent No.2 and the compromise arrived at between
the 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.845/2014
dated 24.10.2014, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at
Crl.M.C. 4160/2015 Page 10 of 11
Police Station Vikaspuri and the proceedings emanating therefrom are
quashed against the petitioners.
15. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
16. The applications Crl. M.A. Nos. 14918/2015 & 15759/2015 are
also disposed of.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
MAY 06, 2016
dd
Crl.M.C. 4160/2015 Page 11 of 11