Ravi Kumar & ORS v. State & ANR.
$~62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 797/2020 & CRL.M.A. 3291-3292/2020 RAVI KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioners Through:
Mr. KLDS Vinober, Adv.
versus STATE & ANR.
..... Respondents Through:
Mr. Ashok Kr. Garg, APP for State with WSI Usha, PS Mandir Marg.
Mr. J. Vijetha, Adv. for R-2 with R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
O R D E R
% 13.02.2020 CRL.M.A. 3291/2020 (Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 797/2020 & CRL.M.A. 3292/2020 Vide the present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR No.54/2018, PS Mandir Marg 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 the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 has since been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent and all claims of the respondent no.2 have been settled and no useful purpose would be served by the continuation of the proceedings qua 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 page no.1 of 6
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/C. The respondent no.2 in her examination on oath by the Court has affirmed having signed her affidavit in response to the petition Ex.CW2/A and the settlement Ex.CW2/B voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter.
The respondent no.2 has further stated that in terms of the settlement 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 through mutual consent vide a decree dated 25.01.2020 under Section 13B(2) of the HMA in HMA Petition No.53/2020 of the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Courts, PHC, New Delhi. She has further stated that in terms of the settlement between her and the petitioner no.1, a total sum of Rs.3,30,000/- has been agreed to be paid to her by the petitioner no.1 and she has received the entire settled sum and that there are no claims of hers left against the petitioners now.
She has further stated that in view of the settlement between her and the petitioners, she has no opposition to the prayer made by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR No.54/2018, PS Mandir Marg registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor does she want the petitioners to be punished in relation thereto. She has further stated that she has studied upto standard 8th and she is pursuing a beautician's course and that she has made her statement after understanding its implications. page no.2 of 6
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.
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 and taking into account the factum of the dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 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 with all claims of the respondent no.2 having been settled, 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 page no.3 of 6
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 page no.
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), page no.5 of 6
the FIR No.54/2018, PS Mandir Marg 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 FEBRUARY 13, 2020 vm page no.1 of 6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
RAVI KUMAR & ORS Vs. STATE & ANR 13.02.2020 CW-1 SI Usha, PS Mandir Marg.
ON S.A.
I identify the petitioner no.1 Mr. Ravi Kumar, petitioner no.2 Mr. Kala and petitioner no.3 Mr. Radhakrishnan as being the two accused arrayed in the FIR No.54/2018, PS Mandir Marg registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and I also identify the respondent no.2 Ms. M. Priya as being the complainant thereof. RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J 13.02.2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
RAVI KUMAR & ORS Vs. STATE & ANR 13.02.2020 CW-2 Ms. M. Priya, d/o Mr. Muniyyappan, aged 25 years, r/o C-2, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. Previously r/o C-127, Albert Square, Gole Market, RK Ashram, New Delhi.
On S.A.
I have brought my original proof of identity, copy of which is on the record as Ex.CW2/C. My affidavit in support of the petition bears my signatures thereon at points A & B thereon on Ex.CW2/A. The settlement arrived at between me and the petitioner no.1 at the Delhi Mediation Centre, PHC, New Delhi on 16.08.2019 bears my signatures thereon as visible at point A on Ex.CW2/B. I have signed all these documents voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter. The marriage between me and the petitioner no.1 has since been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent vide a decree dated 25.01.2020 under Section 13B(2) of the HMA in HMA Petition No.53/2020 of the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Courts, PHC, New Delhi.
In terms of the settlement between me and the petitioner no.1, a total sum of Rs.3,30,000/- has been agreed to be paid to me by the petitioner no.1 and I have received the entire settled sum. There are no claims of mine left against the petitioners now.
In terms of the settlement between me and the petitioners, I have no
opposition to the prayer made by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR No.54/2018, PS Mandir Marg 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 have studied upto standard 8th and I am pursuing a beautician's course.
I have made my statement after understanding its implications voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter.
RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J 13.02.2020