Kartik Jain & ORS. v. State & ANR.
$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5329/2019 & CRL.M.A. 38527/2019 KARTIK JAIN & ORS.
..... Petitioners Through:
Petitioners in person with Mr. Rakesh Vatsa, Mr.Jeetin, Mr. Neel Gulia, Advocates.
versus STATE & ANR.
..... Respondents Through:
Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State with SI Vikram Singh, PS Hauz Khas.
R-2 in person with Ms. Shreya Singhal, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
O R D E R
% 05.02.2020 Vide the present petition, the petitioners seek the quashing of the FIR No.1109/2015, PS Hauz Khas 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 vide a settlement agreement dated 25.05.2019 and all claims of the respondent no.2 have been settled and that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 has been dissolved 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 5 i.e. petitioner no.1 Kartik Jain, petitioner no.2 Mrs.
Meenakshi Jain, petitioner no.3 Mrs. Manisha Jain, petitioner no.4 Mrs. Ruchika Jain and petitioner no.5 Mr. Shobhit Jain as being the five accused arrayed in the FIR No.1109/2015, PS Hauz Khas registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and he has also identified the respondent no.2 Smt. Vaishali Jain 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 has affirmed having signed her affidavit dated 05.08.2019 annexed to the petition at points A & B on Ex.CW2/B as well as the copy of the settlement agreement dated 25.05.2019 at point A on Ex.
CW2/C (original of which has been seen and returned) qua which she states that she has signed these documents voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter and 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.1216/2019 vide a decree dated 13.08.2019 of the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, South Saket, the certified copy of which is on the record as Ex.CW2/D. She has further stated that in view of the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioner no.
1, she does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR No.
implications of the statement made by her.
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.
The respondent no.2 is apparently well educated having done her post graduation in English Literature and working with a Japnese Government Organisation, 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. In as much as the FIR has apparently emanated from a matrimonial discord between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2, which has since been resolved by dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2, for maintenance of peace and harmony between the parties and for the well being of 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.
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.1109/2015, PS Hauz Khas registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner nos. 1 to 5 i.e. petitioner no.1 Kartik Jain, petitioner no.2 Mrs. Meenakshi Jain, petitioner no.3 Mrs. Manisha Jain, petitioner no.4 Mrs. Ruchika Jain and petitioner no.5 Mr. Shobhit Jain are thus quashed. The petition is disposed of.
ANU MALHOTRA, J FEBRUARY 05, 2020 'neha chopra'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
KARTIK JAIN & ORS. VS. STATE & ANR.
05.02.2020 CW-1 SI Vikram Singh, PS Hauz Khas.
ON S.A.
I identify the petitioner nos. 1 to 5 i.e. petitioner no.1 Kartik Jain, petitioner no.2 Mrs. Meenakshi Jain, petitioner no.3 Mrs. Manisha Jain, petitioner no.4 Mrs. Ruchika Jain and petitioner no.5 Mr. Shobhit Jain as being the five accused arrayed in the FIR No.1109/2015, PS Hauz Khas registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and I also identify the respondent no.2 Smt. Vaishali Jain as being the complainant of the said FIR.
RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J 05.02.2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
KARTIK JAIN & ORS. VS. STATE & ANR.
05.02.2020 CW-2 Ms. Vaishali Jain, d/o Sh.Kamal Nayan Jain, age 35 years, r/o X4, Green Park (Main), 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 dated 05.08.2019 annexed to the petition bears my signatures at points A & B on Ex.CW2/B. The settlement agreement dated 25.05.2019 has been produced in original and the copy thereof bears my signatures as visible 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. There are now no claims of mine left against the petitioners. The marriage between me and the petitioner has since been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the HMA, 1955 in HMA Petition No.1216/2019 vide a decree dated 13.08.
2019 of the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, South Saket, the certified copy of which is on the record as Ex.CW2/D. In view of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioner, I thus do not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR No.1109/2015, PS Hauz Khas registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor do I want the petitioners to be punished in relation thereto.
Government Organisation.
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 05.02.2020