Rupesh Kumar Chhabra & ORS v. State & ANR
$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RUPESH KUMAR CHHABRA & ORS ..... Petitioners Through:
Petitioners in person with Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate.
versus STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through:
Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for State with W/SI Sushma, PS Uttam Nagar.
R-2 in person with Mr. Dhruv Gupta & Mr. Harshil Gupta, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
O R D E R
% 22.01.2020 Vide the present petition, the petitioners seek the quashing of the FIR No.478/2015, PS Uttam Nagar registered under Sections 406/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 submitting to the effect that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties and that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 has been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent and no useful purpose would be served by the continuation of the proceedings in the present lis. The Investigating Officer of the case is present and has identified the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 i.e. the petitioner no.1 Sh.Rupesh Kumar Chhabra, petitioner no.2 Smt. Chander Kanta and petitioner no.3 Smt. Seema Nagpal as being the three accused arrayed in the FIR No.478/2015, PS Uttam Nagar
registered under Sections 406/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and he has also identified the respondent no.2 Ms.Heena Srivastava 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 response to the petition at points A & B on Ex.CW2/B as well as the mutual agreement dated 21.11.2017 which has been arrived at between her and the petitioner no.1 at point A on Ex.CW2/C, which she states that she has signed these documents voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter. She has further testified to the effect that in terms of the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioner no.1, a total sum of Rs.50,000/- had been agreed to be paid to her by the petitioner no.1 out of which a sum of Rs.40,000/- has been received by her previously and a balance sum of Rs.
10,000/- has now been handed over to her by the petitioner no.1 during the course of the present proceedings and she has further stated that there are now no claims of hers left against the petitioners. She has further testified to the effect that the marriage between her and the petitioner no.1 has since been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the HMA, 1955 in HMA Petition No.3096/2018 vide a decree dated 27.11.2018 of the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, South West, Dwarka, copy of which is on the record as Ex.CW2/D and she has further stated that she does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR No.
406/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor does she want them to be punished in relation thereto and has further stated that she has made her statement 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 settlement arrived at between the parties and in view of the deposition made by the respondent no.2.
The respondent no.2 is apparently well educated having done her graduation and works with the Kotak Mahindra Bank and has stated that she has understood the implications of the statement made by her and there appears no reason to disbelieve the statement of the respondent no.2 that she has arrived at the settlement with the petitioners voluntarily. In as much as, the FIR has apparently emanated from a matrimonial discord between the parties which has since been resolved by the dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the HMA, 1955, it is considered appropriate in the interest of justice for maintenance of peace and harmony between the petitioners and the respondent no.2 as well as for the well being of the respondent no.
2 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.
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.
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. 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.478/2015, PS Uttam Nagar registered under Sections 406/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 i.e. the petitioner no.1 Sh.Rupesh Kumar Chhabra, petitioner no.2 Smt. Chander Kanta and petitioner no.3 Smt. Seema Nagpal are thus quashed. The petition is disposed of.
ANU MALHOTRA, J JANUARY 22, 2020 'neha chopra'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
RUPESH KUMAR CHHABRA & ORS.Vs. STATE & ANR.
22.01.2020 CW-1 W/SI Sushma, PS Uttam Nagar.
ON S.A.
I identify the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 i.e. the petitioner no.1 Sh.Rupesh Kumar Chhabra, petitioner no.2 Smt. Chander Kanta and petitioner no.3 Smt. Seema Nagpal as being the three accused arrayed in the FIR No.478/2015, PS Uttam Nagar registered under Sections 406/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and I also identify the respondent no.2 Ms.Heena Srivastava as being the complainant of the said FIR. RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J 22.01.2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
RUPESH KUMAR CHHABRA & ORS.Vs. STATE & ANR.
22.01.2020 CW-2 Ms. Heena Srivastava, d/o Sh. Ajay Srivastava, age 29 years, r/o A-1/372, Hastsal Road, Uttam Nagar, New 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 response to the petition bears my signatures at points A & B on Ex.CW2/B. The mutual agreement dated 21.11.2017 between me and the petitioner no.1 also bears my signatures at point A on Ex.CW2/C, I have signed these documents voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter. In terms of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioner no.1, a total sum of Rs.50,000/- had been agreed to be paid to me by the petitioner no.1 out of which a sum of Rs.40,000/- has been received by me previously and the balance sum of Rs.10,000/- has now been handed over to me in cash by the petitioner no.1 during the course of the present proceedings. There are now no claims of mine left against the petitioners.
The marriage between me and the petitioner no.1 has since been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the HMA, 1955 in HMA Petition No.3096/2018 vide a decree dated 27.11.2018 of the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, South West, Dwarka, copy of which is on the record as Ex.CW2/D.
I do not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR No.478/2015, PS Uttam Nagar registered under Sections 406/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor do I want them to be punished in relation thereto.
I am a graduate and I work with Kotak Mahindra Bank. 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 22.01.2020