Full Judgment Text
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Judgment delivered on: 07 September, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. No.3664/2015
MOHD SHAHID ALIAS SHAHID KHAN AND ORS
..... Petitioners
Represented by: Mr.Parvez Alam, Adv with
petitioners in person.
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Mukesh Kumar, APP for
the State with SI Shashi
Kant, PS New Usmanpur,
Delhi in person.
Mr.Abbas Khan, Adv for R2
with respondent No.2 in
person.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Crl. M.A. No.12989/2015 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
Crl. M.A. No.12988/2015 (Delay in refiling)
In view of the reasons explained in the instant application, the delay
of 9 days in re-filing stands condoned.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
CRL.M.C. No.3664/2015
1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Crl.M.C.No.3664/2015 Page 1 of 8
Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing of FIR
No.1032/2014 registered at Police Station New Usmanpur, Delhi, for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC and Section 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the consequential proceedings
emanating therefrom against them.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit that
the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2,
namely, Smt.Ayesha. Thereafter, the petitioner and respondent No.2
settled the disputes before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi vide settlement agreement dated 20.02.2015. Consequent
to such settlement, marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent
No.2 has been dissolved by Muslim customary rites by pronouncing
Talaq thrice on 01.05.2015. As per the settlement, the agreed amount has
also been paid. Thus, respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the case
further against petitioners.
3. Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court through learned
counsel Mr.Abbas Khan and who has been duly identified by the
Investigating Officer of the case SI Shashi Kant. On instructions, learned
counsel for respondent No.2 does not dispute as to what is stated by
learned counsel for petitioners and has submitted that the matter has been
settled between the parties, marriage between petitioner No.1 and
respondent No.2 has been dissolved by Islamic customary rite on
01.05.2015. Thus, she does not want to pursue the case against the
petitioners and has no objection, if the present petition is allowed.
4. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submits that the
Crl.M.C.No.3664/2015 Page 2 of 8
matter is at the initial stage of investigation and since the respondent No.2
has come forward not to press the case against petitioners and present case
being a matrimonial one, the State has no objection, if this Court allows
the present petition.
5. Under the circumstances and looking to the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and
1
Another , wherein the Apex Court 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; by observing as under:
“58. ....However, certain offences which
overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour
having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial,
financial, partnership or such like transactions 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 and the victim
have settled all disputes between them amicably,
irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been
made compoundable, the High Court may within the
framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal
proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied
that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any
likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not
quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be
casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.”
6. While recognizing the need of amicable resolution of disputes in
cases like the instant one, the aforesaid dictum has been affirmed by the
Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of
1
(2012) 10 SCC 303
Crl.M.C.No.3664/2015 Page 3 of 8
2
Punjab & Anr . The pertinent observations of the Apex Court 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.
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
2
2014 6 SCC 466
Crl.M.C.No.3664/2015 Page 4 of 8
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.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to
examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases
would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice
and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal cases.
29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences and therefore
are to be generally treated as crime against the society
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
Crl.M.C.No.3664/2015 Page 5 of 8
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
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
Crl.M.C.No.3664/2015 Page 6 of 8
question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a
crime.”
7. In the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. Vs. Babita
3
Raghuvanshi & Anr , wherein 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
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….”
3
(2013) 4 SCC 58
Crl.M.C.No.3664/2015 Page 7 of 8
8. Keeping in view the legal position as discussed above, the
settlement arrived at between the parties, statement of respondent No.2
and the fact that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent
No.2 has already been dissolved and the agreed amount has been received
by her from petitioners, therefore, no purpose would be served by
directing the petitioners to face the trial. Accordingly, 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.1032/2014 registered at Police Station New
Usmanpur, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/
406/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and all
proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua them.
10. I hereby make it clear that both the parties shall remain bound by
the terms of settlement dated 20.02.2015 arrived at Delhi Mediation
Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
11. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed with no order
as to costs.
12. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the
parties.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 07, 2015
M
Crl.M.C.No.3664/2015 Page 8 of 8