Sh. Dinesh Kumar & ORS. v. State & ANR.
$~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1134/2019 SH. DINESH KUMAR & ORS.
..... Petitioners Through:
Mr.Narender Kumar and Mr.Naresh Kumar Bansal, Advocates versus STATE & ANR.
..... Respondents Through:
Ms.Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for State With SI Hawa Singh, PS Mangolpuri Ms.Sunita Arora, Adv (DHCLSC) for R-2 with R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
O R D E R
% 27.01.2020 The petitioners vide the present petition seek quashing of FIR No.844/2015, PS Mangolpuri, registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the D.P.Act submitting to the effect that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties vide the mediation settlement dated 1.8.2018 EX.CW-2/B arrived at the Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini District Courts, New Delhi and that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 has since been dissolved vide a decree of
divorce through mutual consent dated 22.12.2018 under Section 13B(2) of the Court of the Judge, Family Courts, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi in HMA No. 2321/18 and that no useful purpose would be served by the continuation of the proceedings in relation to the FIR in question.
The Investigating Officer has identified the petitioners as being the accused arrayed in the FIR present in the Court today and has also identified the respondent No.2, present in the Court today as being the complainant of the FIR in question. The respondent no.2 on her deposition on oath by the Court has produced her original proof of identity, copy of which is on the record as Ex.CW2/A and has affirmed having signed her affidavit EX.CW2/B in support of the petition and the mediation settlement dated 1.8.2018 EX.CW-2/B voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter. In terms of the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioner No.1 dated 1.8.2018 the marriage between her and the petitioner No.
1 has since been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 dated 22.12.2018 in HMA No. 2321/18 of the Court of the Judge, Family Courts, NorthWest, Rohini Courts ,Delhi EX.CW-2/C. The respondent No.2 stated that in view of the settlement arrived between her and the petitioner No.1 a total sum of Rs.3,00,000/- had been agreed to be paid to her by the petitioner No.1 towards all her claims out of which a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- had been received by her previously and the balance sum of Rs.
No.1 today vide a Demand Draft bearing No. 925884 dated 15.1.2020 drawn on Andhra Bank in her favour. The photocopy of the same is taken on record. The respondent No.2 further deposed that in view of the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioner No.1 she has received all her articles of jewellery and that there are now no claims of hers left against the petitioners and thus she does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners no. 1 to 4, namely, Dinesh Kumar, Kamal Singh, Smt. Pushpa Devi and Prithvi Raj seeking quashing of the FIR No.844/2015, PS Mangolpuri, registered under Sections 498-A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor does she want the petitioners to be punished in relation thereto in view of the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioners. The respondent No.
2 further stated that she has studied till standard 8th and has understood the implications of the statement made by her and she has made her statement voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion 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 settlement arrived at between the parties and the deposition of the respondent No.2.
There appears no reason to disbelieve the statement made by the respondent no.2 that she has arrived at a settlement with the petitioner no.1 voluntarily of her own accord without any duress pressure or coercion from any quarter. In view of the statement made by the respondent no.2 and the non-opposition on behalf of the State in as much as the FIR in question has emanated from 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 the respondent no.2 has categorically stated that there are no claims of hers left against the petitioners, 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. State of Punjab; (2014) 6 SCC 466 wherein it has been observed vide paragraph 31(IV) to the effect:
"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) ........
(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 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.
(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 noncompoundable, 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),
the FIR No.844/2015, PS Mangolpuri, registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the D.P.Act and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners are quashed.
The petition is disposed of.
ANU MALHOTRA, J JANUARY 27, 2020/SV
Item No. 33 CRL.M.C. 1134/2019 DINESH KUMAR & ORS V. STATE & ANR.
CW-1 SI HAWA SINGH PS MANGOLPURI ON S.A.
I identify the petitioners No. 1 to 4, namely, Dinesh Kumar, Kamal Singh, Smt. Pushpa Devi and Prithvi Raj as being the accused arrayed in FIR No.844/2015, PS Mangolpuri, registered under Sections 498-A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the D.P.Act present in the Court today. I also identify the respondent No.2 present in the Court today as being the complainant of the said FIR.
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
RO & AC 27.1.2020
Item No. 33 CRL.M.C. 1134/2019 DINESH KUMAR & ORS V. STATE & ANR.
CW-2 MS.LAXMI @ LUCY D/O SH. POPE SINGH, R/O D-705, MANGOLPURI, DELHI, AGED 34 YEARS.
ON S.A.
I have brought my original proof of identity i.e. Aadhar Card. The photocopy of the same is EX.CW-2/E.
My affidavit in support of the petition bears my signatures at point A & B on Ex.CW-2/A. The mediation settlement dated 1.8.2018 bears my signatures thereon on each page as visible at point A on EX.CW-2/B. I have signed these documents voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter. In terms of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioner No.1 dated 1.8.2018 the marriage between me and the petitioner No.1 has since been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 dated 22.12.2018 in HMA No. 2321/18 of the Court of the Judge, Family Courts, North-West, Rohini Courts ,Delhi. The copy of the decree of divorce is EX.CW-2/C. Further in view of the settlement arrived between me and the petitioner No.1 a total sum of Rs.
3,00,000/- had been agreed to be paid to me by the petitioner No.1 towards my all claims out of which a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- had been received by me previously and the balance sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has been handed over to me by the petitioner No.1 today vide a Demand Draft bearing No. 925884 dated 15.1.2020 drawn on Andhra Bank. The photocopy of the same be placed on record. There are now no claims of mine left against the petitioners. In view of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioner No.
of jewellery thus I do not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners no. 1 to 4, namely, Dinesh Kumar, Kamal Singh, Smt. Pushpa Devi and Prithvi Raj seeking quashing of the FIR No.844/2015, PS Mangolpuri, registered under Sections 498-A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor do I want the petitioners to be punished in relation thereto in view of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioners.
I have studied till standard 8th and I have understood the implications of the statement made by me. I have made my statement voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter. ANU MALHOTRA, J.
RO & AC 27.1.2020