Full Judgment Text
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Judgment delivered on: 11 March, 2016
+ CRL.M.C. 1002/2016
RAHUL CHOPRA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Represented by: Mr. Anirudh K. Mudgal,
Adv.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Arun Kr. Sharma, APP
for State with SI Manjeet, PS-Subhash Place.
Mr. Rajesh Vasisht, Adv. for SPA of
respondent no.2 with Mrs. Meena Madnani,
SPA of respondent no.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Crl. M.A. 4309/2016 (for exemption)
Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
+ CRL.M.C. 1002/2016
1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek directions thereby
quashing of FIR No.805/2014 registered at Police Station Subhash
Place, New Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections
498A/406/34 IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating
therefrom against them.
Crl.M.C.No.1002 /2016 Page 1 of 9
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits
that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent
No.2, namely, Ms. Mehak Madnani consequent upon certain
matrimonial and domestic disputes having arisen between the parties.
The case is at the initial stage of investigation.Meanwhile, respondent
No.2 vide her Power of Attorney dated 27.03.2015 authorized her
mother Mrs. Meena Madnani to appear in the Court on her behalf
wherein inter alia she has been attorned as under:
“As I am temporarily living and studying abroad, the power
of attorney also gives authorization for all legal acts
concerning any legal dispute, in particular to conduct of a
case, to sign and file divorce decree on my behalf, to
advance counterclaim in legal proceedings, to undertake
and accept services to appoint a representative, to remove
the legal dispute through settlement, waiver and
acknowledgment, to lodge and take back an appeal and to
waive such, further to accept money and valuables, in
particular the matter in controversy and to costs to be
reimbursed by the opponent, the court cashier’s office or
other bodies.”
3. Thereafter, the matter has been amicably settled between
petitioners and respondent no.2 through her mother Mrs. Meena
Madnani, being SPA vide settlement / agreement dated 11.04.2015 for
a total sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as full and final settlement. As per the said
settlement, Rs.1,00,000/- paid at the time of signing and executing of
the agreement mentioned above, Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- paid
at the time of recording of the first and second motion petition
respectively and an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- has been paid today in the
Court by way of demand draft being no. 092007 dated 17.02.2016
drawn on Canara Bank, Wazirpur, Branch, New Delhi, which facts
Crl.M.C.No.1002 /2016 Page 2 of 9
have not been disputed by Mrs. Meena Madnani, SPA of respondent
No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that
consequent to the said settlement, marriage between the petitioner No.1
and respondent No.2 has been dissolved vide decree of mutual divorce
dated 15.01.2016 under Section 13 B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955. Moreover, the agreed amount has also been paid by the
petitioners, thus, respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue her case
further against the petitioners.
5. Mrs. Meena Madnani, mother of respondent No.2 is personally
present in the Court. She does not dispute the submissions made by
learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that she is making the
statement before this Court under instructions from respondent no. 2
that the present matter has been amicably settled and consequent
thereto marriage between her daughter, i.e., respondent No.2 and the
petitioner No.1 has been dissolved vide decree of divorce dated
15.01.2016. Respondent no. 2 has received the entire agreed amount
and has no complaints whatsoever against the petitioner No.1 and his
family members. The affidavit of SPA of respondent No.2 is at page
No.28 of the petition. She further submits that now no dispute with
petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in
question may be brought to an end.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
State submits that the case is at the initial stage of investigation as
charge sheet is yet to be filed. He submits that the present matter is a
Crl.M.C.No.1002 /2016 Page 3 of 9
matrimonial one and since the matter has been amicably settled
between the parties 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.
7. Under the circumstances and looking to the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and
Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, 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.”
8. While recognizing the need of amicable resolution of disputes in
cases like the instant one, the aforesaid dictum has been affirmed by
Crl.M.C.No.1002 /2016 Page 4 of 9
the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs.
State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC 466 . 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 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
Crl.M.C.No.1002 /2016 Page 5 of 9
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 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,
Crl.M.C.No.1002 /2016 Page 6 of 9
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 question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a
crime.”
9. In the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. Vs. Babita
Crl.M.C.No.1002 /2016 Page 7 of 9
Raghuvanshi & Anr. (2013) 4 SCC 58 , 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….”
10. Petitioners and Mrs. Meena Madnani, mother of respondent
no.2 being her Special Power of Attorney are present in the Court
today approbate to the aforesaid settlement dated 11.04.2015 and
undertake to remain bound by the same.
Crl.M.C.No.1002 /2016 Page 8 of 9
11. 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 discussed
above, 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.
12. Consequently, FIR No.805/2014 registered at Police Station
Subhash Place, New Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections
498A/406/34 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby
quashed against the petitioners.
13. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed with no
order as to costs.
14. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the
parties.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
MARCH 11, 2016/ jg
Crl.M.C.No.1002 /2016 Page 9 of 9