Full Judgment Text
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3112/2014
VIKRAM SHARMA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Mahesh Verma, Advocate.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. O. P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor .
Mr. S. K. Chawla, Advocate with complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral)
1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR
No.480/2012 under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 IPC registered at police station
Vijay Vihar, on the ground that the parties have settled the matter.
2. Issue notice.
Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP for the State, and Mr. S.K. Chawla, Advocate
for the complainant, accept notice.
3. It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be registered at the instance
of respondent No.2 / complainant on account of certain disputes in
connection with the marriage of the complainant with the first petitioner
Vikram Sharma. It is stated that the complainant and the first petitioner have
since also obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13
(B) (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in HMA No.570/2014 on
02.04.2014.
4. Earlier, in a petition seeking anticipatory bail, being Bail Appln.
No.622/2013, moved by the first petitioner Vikram Sharma in connection
Crl.M.C. No.3112/2014 Page 1 of 8
with the aforesaid FIR, the matter was also referred to mediation by the
High Court on 16.04.2013, and ultimately, a Settlement Agreement dated
29.07.2013 was recorded before the Delhi High Court Mediation and
Conciliation Centre setting down all the terms and conditions, upon which,
the parties had agreed. A copy of the Agreement has also been annexed to
this petition. In terms of the aforesaid Agreement, the first petitioner had
undertaken to pay Rs.10 lakhs to the complainant / respondent No.2 in full
and final settlement of all her claims and dues. Out of this amount, Rs.6.5
lakhs have already been paid to the complainant, and the remaining amount
of Rs.3,50,000/- has been today handed over by the petitioners to the
complainant in Court today in the following manner:
S. No. DD No. Dated Drawn on Amount(Rs.)
1. 134948 30.06.2014 Oriental Bank of Commerce 1,50,000/-
2. 205935 03.07.2014 -do- 85,000/-
S. No. Manager’s Dated Drawn on Amount(Rs.)
cheque No.
1. 043473 03.07.2014 Andhra Bank 35,000/-
2. 043477 07.07.2014 -do- 80,000/-
5. Both the petitioner No.1 as well as the complainant, who are present,
specifically approbate the aforesaid settlement and undertake to be bound by
the terms set down therein. The consequences of violation of the same have
been explained to them by their counsel. Their undertaking is accepted by
this Court, and they shall remain bound by the same.
6. The complainant / second respondent further states that nothing more
is now due to her under the terms of the settlement; and that she is not
interested in pursuing the matter any further, and prays that the proceedings
be closed.
7. Counsel for the State submits that looking to the overall
Crl.M.C. No.3112/2014 Page 2 of 8
circumstances; and since the matter has arisen primarily out of a
matrimonial dispute, where the parties have settled with each other; and
where the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution;
no useful purpose will be served in continuing with these proceedings,
which is at the stage of investigation.
8. Consequently, and looking to the decisions of the Supreme Court in
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , (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; 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.”
And also in Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.
2014(2) Crimes 67 (SC) where 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
Crl.M.C. No.3112/2014 Page 3 of 8
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 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 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 pre-dominantly civil character,
particularly those arising out of commercial transactions
Crl.M.C. No.3112/2014 Page 4 of 8
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 Indian Penal Code
would fall in the category of heinous and serious
offences and therefore is 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 Indian
Penal Code 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 Indian Penal
Code 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 Indian
Penal Code. 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 later 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.
Crl.M.C. No.3112/2014 Page 5 of 8
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
a conclusion as to whether the offence under
Section 307 Indian Penal Code 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 Indian Penal Code 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.”
And specifically in respect of matrimonial disputes in Jitendra
Raghuvanshi & Ors. v. Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr. (2013) 4 SCC 58,
where the Supreme Court held as follows:-
Crl.M.C. No.3112/2014 Page 6 of 8
“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….”
I am of the opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus,
which had arisen out of a matrimonial dispute, where parties have now
settled all their disputes and differences amongst themselves; and the
complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution.
9. Consequently, the petition is allowed, and FIR No.480/2012 under
Sections 498-A, 406, 34 IPC registered at police station Vijay Vihar, and all
proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.
Crl.M.C. No.3112/2014 Page 7 of 8
10. The petition is disposed off.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
Judge
SEPTEMBER 02, 2014
dr
Crl.M.C. No.3112/2014 Page 8 of 8