Sunil Kumar & ORS. v. State & ANR.
$~62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 605/2020 & CRL.M.A. 2508/2020 SUNIL KUMAR & ORS.
..... Petitioners Through:
Petitioners in person with Mr.
Sanjeev Chhikara, Advocate.
versus STATE & ANR.
..... Respondents Through:
Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, APP for State with SI Manoj, PS Kanjhawala.
R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
O R D E R
% 04.02.2020 CRL.M.A. 2508/2020 (Ex.) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
Vide the present petition, the petitioners seek the quashing of the FIR No.58/2016, PS Kanjhawala 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 that the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 have since reconciled and are living together amicably and peacefully without any problems now and no useful purpose would be served by the continuation of the proceedings in relation to the present FIR.
The Investigating Officer of the case is present and has identified the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 i.e. petitioner no.1 Sunil Kumar, petitioner no.2 Smt. Shakuntla and petitioner no.3 Smt. Rajesh present today in Court as being the three accused arrayed in the FIR No.58/2016, PS Kanjhawala registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and he has also identified the respondent no.2 Ms. Anju as being the complainant of the said FIR.
The respondent no.2 has produced her original proof of identity, photocopy of which is on the record as Ex.CW2/A. The respondent no.2 in her examination on oath by the Court has affirmed having signed her affidavit in support of the averments made in the petition at points A & B on Ex.CW2/B. She has further testified to the effect that she has been living with the petitioners since one year after the registration of the FIR on reconciliation having been effected, without any problems now and that she wants to continue to live with the petitioners. She has further testified to the effect that she has three children born of the wedlock between her and the petitioner no.1 i.e. one aged 6 years, one aged 3 years and one aged 4 months and that she is now living with the petitioner no.1 along with their minor children happily.
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 petitioner nos. 1 to 3 seeking the quashing of the FIR No.58/2016, PS Kanjhawala registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor does she want the petitioners to be punished in relation thereto and that she has understood the implications of the statement made by her.
The respondent no.2 is apparently well educated having done her graduation and presently working as an MTS with the RML Hospital and there appears no reason to disbelieve her statement that she has arrived at a settlement with the petitioners voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter. On behalf of the State, there is no opposition to the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR in question in view of the reconciliation effected between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2. In view of the deposition of the respondent no.2, reconciliation effected between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 and the non opposition on behalf of the State for maintenance of peace and harmony between the parties and for the well being of the respondent no.
2 and the minor children of the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2, it is considered appropriate to put a quietus to the litigation between the parties in terms of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narender Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab; (2014) 6 SCC 466 wherein it has been observed vide paragraph 31(IV) to the effect:- "31.
(I) ........
(II) ........
(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.
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. 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...."
(emphasis supplied), In view thereof, the FIR No.58/2016, PS Kanjhawala registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 i.e. petitioner no.1 Sunil Kumar, petitioner no.2 Smt. Shakuntla and petitioner no.3 Smt. Rajesh are thus quashed.
The petition is disposed of.
ANU MALHOTRA, J FEBRUARY 04, 2020 'neha chopra'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
SUNIL KUMAR & ORS. STATE & ANR.
04.02.2020 CW-1 SI Manoj, PS Kanjhawala.
ON S.A.
I identify the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 i.e. petitioner no.1 Sunil Kumar, petitioner no.2 Smt. Shakuntla and petitioner no.3 Smt. Rajesh present today in Court as being the three accused arrayed in the FIR No.58/2016, PS Kanjhawala registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and I also identify the respondent no.2 Ms. Anju as being the complainant of the said FIR.
RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J 04.02.2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
SUNIL KUMAR & ORS. STATE & ANR.
04.02.2020 CW-2 Ms. Anju, w/o Sh. Sunil Kumar, d/o Sh. Rajbir Singh, age 31 years, r/o H.No.476, VPO Jonti Kanjhawala, Delhi. ON S.A.
I have brought my original proof of identity, photocopy of which is on the record as Ex.CW2/A. My affidavit in support of the averments made in the petition bears my signatures at points A & B on Ex.CW2/B. I am living with the petitioners since one year after the registration of the FIR on reconciliation having been effected without any problems now and I want to continue to live with the petitioners. There are three children born of the wedlock between me and the petitioner no.1 i.e. one aged 6 years, one aged 3 years and one aged 4 months and I am living with the petitioner no.1 along with our minor children happily.
In view of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioners, I do not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 seeking the quashing of the FIR No.58/2016, PS Kanjhawala 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 an MTS with RML Hospital. I have made my statement after understanding the implications thereof voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter.
RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J 04.02.2020