Sandeep Kumar & ORS. v. The State Goverment Of NCT Of Delhi & ORS.

$~67 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 1066/2024 & CRL.M.A. 4236/2024 SANDEEP KUMAR & ORS.

..... Petitioners Through:

Mr. S.W. Nomani & Mr.

Rukban Tyagi, Advs.

P1 in person versus THE STATE GOVERMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for the State PSI Monu, PS-Mangolpuri Mr. Prashant Kumar & Mr.

Kuntal Chauhan, Advs. for R2 to R4 Complainant in person

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 09.02.2024 1.

The present petition is filed for quashing of FIR No. 1191/2016 dated 28.12.2016, for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), at Police Station Mangol Puri, including all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. The said FIR was registered on a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2.

2.

It is averred that the marriage between the Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No.2 was solemnized on 18.11.2013 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. One child, being Respondent No.3, was born out of the said wedlock prior to the dispute. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are the relatives of Petitioner No.1. 3.

However, due to matrimonial discord, some The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

misunderstandings took place between the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No. 2. Owing to the misunderstandings and temperamental differences, both Respondent No.2 and Petitioner No.1 started living separately.

4.

Subsequently, Respondent No.2 made a complaint against the petitioners and other accused persons, which later culminated into the above mentioned FIR, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty by them and they had misappropriated her stridhan. Chargesheet has been filed in the present case against the petitioners and another accused person, namely Pooja, who is the sister of Petitioner No.1.

5.

The present petition has been filed on the ground that the parties with the intervention of the relatives, common friends and well-wishers, had amicably resolved their disputes on their own free will way back in 2016, without any pressure, coercion, undue influence or duress of any nature, and a Settlement Agreement dated 05.12.2016 has been signed by Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 to that effect, before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini District Courts, Delhi. Pursuant to the settlement, Respondent No.2 has started living peacefully with Petitioner No.1 and the parties have been blessed with another child as well, that is Respondent No.4.

6.

Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 are present in Court and have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. 7.

Respondent No.2, on being asked, submits that the complaint was given on a misunderstanding and she was not subjected to any cruelty by any of the accused persons, including the petitioners. She further states that the allegations under Section 406 of the IPC were also made on a misunderstanding and the stridhan was never misappropriated.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

8.

She further states that after the registration of the present FIR, the misunderstanding was removed, and she has been living happily with Petitioner No.1 and his family.

9.

She submits that she does not want to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present FIR against any accused person, and has no objection if the same is quashed. 10.

The offence under Section 498A of the IPC is noncompoundable whereas the offence under Section 406 of the IPC is compoundable.

11.

It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC can compound offences which are non-compoundable under the Code on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. In Narinder Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed 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 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

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 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."

(emphasis supplied) The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

12.

Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors v. State of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as under :- "16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

(emphasis supplied) 13.

Keeping in view the nature of dispute, the relation between the parties and that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC. 14.

In view of the above, FIR No. 1191/2016 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 15.

The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. AMIT MAHAJAN, J FEBRUARY 9, 2024 "SS"

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.