Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3026/2015
th
Date of Decision : November 27 , 2015
ASHISH ARORA & ORS
..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Kusumlata Sharma, Advocate
with petitioner in person.
versus
STATE & ANR
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State
Mr. Y.S. Chauhan, Advocate for
respondent No. 2.
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. Aashish Arora, Sh. Ashok Arora, Smt.
Neelam Arora and Ms. Shanu Anand @ Shanu Arora for quashing of
FIR No.273/2012 dated 24.11.2012, under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC
registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar on the basis of the
settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent No.2-Ms.
Crl.M.C. 3026/2015 Page 1 of 10
Priyanka on 25.01.2014 .
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
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. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the
dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. The
petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 made a joint statement before the
Family Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi on 23.12.2014 which states that as
per the settlement, the matter has been compromised between the
parties and the petitioner no.1 shall pay an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-
towards full and final settlement of all the claims of the
complainant/respondent no.2. The parties have obtained divorce by
mutual consent decree dated 23.12.2014. The respondent no.2 while
signing the settlement on 25.01.2014 had agreed that she will
cooperate in quashing the FIR and shall not object to the quashing of
the FIR in question. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of the
aforesaid compromise and of her affidavit dated 28.07.2015
supporting this petition. In the affidavit, the respondent no.2 has
Crl.M.C. 3026/2015 Page 2 of 10
stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. 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.
4. 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:-
“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.”
5. 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
Crl.M.C. 3026/2015 Page 3 of 10
(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.
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
Crl.M.C. 3026/2015 Page 4 of 10
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.
6. 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 their 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.
7. 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
Crl.M.C. 3026/2015 Page 5 of 10
abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured;
where 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.
8. 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.
9. 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
Crl.M.C. 3026/2015 Page 6 of 10
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
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
Crl.M.C. 3026/2015 Page 7 of 10
notwithstanding the fact the offence under Section 498A IPC is non-
compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing
the FIR under these section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the
facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.
10. 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
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
Crl.M.C. 3026/2015 Page 8 of 10
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.
11. 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.
12. 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
Crl.M.C. 3026/2015 Page 9 of 10
proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.
13. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.273/2012
dated 24.11.2012, under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC registered at
Police Station Paschim Vihar and the proceedings emanating
therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.
14. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 27, 2015
dd
Crl.M.C. 3026/2015 Page 10 of 10