Raghubans Prasad Choudhary v. The State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi) & ANR
$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 297/2019 & CRL.M.A. 1266/2019 RAGHUBANS PRASAD CHOUDHARY ..... Petitioner Through:
Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Adv.
versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR..... Respondents Through:
Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State with ASI Jagat Singh, PS Okhla Industrial Area.
R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
O R D E R
% 03.03.2020 Vide the present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR No.513/2016, PS Okhla Industrial Area registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 submitting to the effect that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties and no useful purpose would be served by the continuation of the proceedings in relation to the FIR in question.
The Investigating Officer of the case has identified the petitioners present today in Court as being the accused arrayed in the FIR in question and has also identified respondent no.2 present in Court today as being the complainant of the said FIR.
The respondent no.2 has produced her original proof of identity, copy of which is on the record as Ex.CW2/A. The respondent no.2 in her page no.1 of 6
examination on oath by the Court has affirmed having signed the settlement agreement dated 03.08.2018 arrived at between her and the petitioner no.1 at the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre Ex.CW2/B voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter.
She has further stated that pursuant to the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioner no.1, the marriage between her and the petitioner no.1 has since been dissolved vide a decree of divorce dated 04.01.2019 under Section 13B (2) of the HMA in HMA Petition No.07/2019 of the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi, copy of which is on the record as Ex.CW2/C. She has further stated that in terms of the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioner no.1, a total sum of Rs.4 lakhs has been agreed to be paid to her by the petitioner no.1 and she has received the entire settled sum of Rs.4 lakhs. She has also stated that the observations made in the judgment dated 04.01.2019 in HMA No.07/2019 of the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, South-East, Saket qua the settled sum of Rs.4,10,000/-, she has received a sum of Rs.10,000/- mentioned therein previously and that there are no claims of hers left against the petitioners now.
She has further stated that in view of the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioners, she does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR No.513/2016, PS Okhla Industrial Area registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor does she want the petitioners to be punished in relation page no.2 of 6
thereto and that she is a graduate and she works as a Manager and has made her statement voluntarily after understanding the implications thereof. On behalf of the State, there is no opposition to the prayer made by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR in question in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and the respondent no.2. In as much as there appears no reason to disbelieve the statement made by the respondent no.2 that she has arrived at a settlement with the petitioners voluntarily in as much as the FIR in question being an aftermath of a matrimonial discord which has since been resolved vide dissolution of the marriage between the respondent no.2 and the petitioner no.1 in as much as all claims of the respondent no.2 having been settled as testified by the respondent no.
2, it is considered appropriate to put a quietus to the litigation and disputes between the parties for maintenance of peace and harmony between them as also for the well being of the respondent no.2, in terms of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narender Singh & Ors. V.
"31. 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:
(I) ........
(II) ........
page no.3 of 6
(III) ........
(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly 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. ..................."
and in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, to the effect : - "58............................ No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
, or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. 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 page no.
of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed." [Refer to B.S. Joshi, (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant, (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma, (2008) 16 SCC 1.]"
and in view of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr. (2013) 4 SCC 58, to the effect : - "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...." page no.5 of 6
(emphasis supplied), the FIR No.513/2016, PS Okhla Industrial Area registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners are quashed. The petition is disposed of.
ANU MALHOTRA, J MARCH 03, 2020 vm page no.6 of 6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
RAGHUBANS PRASAD CHOUDHARY Vs. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR 03.03.2020 CW-1 ASI Jagat Singh, PS Okhla Industrial Area. ON S.A.
I identify the petitioner no.1 Mr. Raghubans Prasad Choudhary, petitioner no.2 Mr. Ganesh Prasad Choudhary, petitioner no.3 Mrs. Indu Devi, petitioner no.4 Ms. Anju Mishra and petitioner no.5 Ms. Sanju Kumari as being the accused arrayed in the FIR No.513/2016, PS Okhla Industrial Area registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. I identify the respondent no.2 Ms. Jyoti as being the complainant of the said FIR.
RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J 03.03.2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
RAGHUBANS PRASAD CHOUDHARY Vs. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR 03.03.2020 CW-2 Ms. Jyoti, d/o Mr. Kamlesh Jha, aged 28 years, r/o H.68, Harkesh Nagar, Oklha, Phase-II, New Delhi.
I have brought my original proof of identity, copy of which is on the record as Ex.CW2/A. The settlement agreement dated 03.08.2018 arrived at between me and the petitioner no.1 at the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre bears my signatures as visible at point A thereon on Ex.CW2/B, which I have signed voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter. Pursuant to the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioner no.1, the marriage between me and the petitioner no.1 has since been dissolved vide a decree of divorce dated 04.01.2019 under Section 13B (2) of the HMA in HMA Petition No.07/2019 of the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi, copy of which is on the record as Ex.CW2/C.
In terms of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioner no.1, a total sum of Rs.4 lakhs has been agreed to be paid to me by the petitioner no.1 and I have received the entire settled sum of Rs.4 lakhs. The observations made in the judgment dated 04.01.2019 in HMA No.07/2019
of the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, South-East, Saket qua the settled sum being of Rs.4,10,000/- and the sum as stated to be Rs.10,000/- mentioned therein has also been received by me previously. There are no claims of mine left against the petitioners now. In view of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioners, I do not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR No.513/2016, PS Okhla Industrial Area registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor do I want the petitioners to be punished in relation thereto.
I am a graduate and I work as a Manager.
I have made my statement voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter after understanding the implications thereof.
RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J 03.03.2020