Ashutosh Kumar Singh & ANR. v. State (Govt Of NCT Of Delhi) & ANR.

$~27 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 1010/2017 ASHUTOSH KUMAR SINGH & ANR.

..... Petitioners Through:

Ms. Payal Raghav & Ms. Aarti Sharma, Advs.

versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State with Mr. Lokesh Chandra, Adv.

Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. for R-2 & 3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

O R D E R

% 16.05.2017 1.

The second respondent Smt. Saraswati Singh was married to first petitioner Ashutosh Kumar Singh on 21.4.2014. One girl child took birth out of cohabitation of the said parties. It appears the marriage ran into rough weather. Eventually, it led to registration of first information report (FIR) No. 251/2016 on the complaint of second respondent, by police station New Ashok Nagar for investigation into offences allegedly committed, punishable under Sections 498A/323/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). It further appears that the allegations concerning hurt relate to an incident wherein Yashwant Singh, third respondent (brother of second respondent) had been subjected to assault and injured.

2.

The parties were referred to Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (East) during the hearing on application for anticipatory bail. They entered into an amicable settlement in the said mediation proceedings on 19.5.2016, the settlement being in the nature of a resolve that they would join together as husband and wife.

Pursuant to the said settlement, the parties have statedly moved to live together under the same roof with their daughter on 06.06.2016. It is against the above backdrop and pursuant to above mentioned settlement of mediation that prayer is made for the FIR No. 251/2016 of police station New Ashok Nagar to be quashed.

3.

In the writ petition, as originally presented, Yashwant Singh, the brother of the second respondent was not impleaded. On this fact coming to the fore, on application (Crl.M.A. 6037/2017) Yashwant Singh was impleaded by order dated 20th April, 2017.

4.

Status report has been filed by the State.

Second and third respondents have submitted their respective affidavits giving no objection to the prayer in the writ petition. The learned Additional Standing Counsel for the respondent confirms that the injuries suffered by the second respondent were simple in nature.

5.

In writ petition (criminal) 1004/2017, titled Rakesh & Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi), while allowing an identical prayer against similar backdrop, this Court by order dated 20.04.2017, held thus:- 10.

Pertinent to note here that offence under Section 498A IPC is not compoundable. The parties are constrained to move this court for quashing on the basis of amicable resolution arrived at by them in the facts and circumstances noted above. 11.

The scope and ambit of the power conferred on this court by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in the particular context of prayer for quashing criminal proceedings, was examined by the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr., (2003) 4 SCC 675, against the backdrop of catena of earlier decisions. Noting, with reference to the decision in State of Karnakata Vs. L Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699, that in exercise of this "inherent" and "wholesome power", the touchstone is as to whether "the ends of justice so require", and it was observed

thus :

"10. ... that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. ...that the compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction."

6.

12.

The Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi (supra) further noted as under :- "What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations.

It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on the earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences? The answer clearly has to be in the "negative".

would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides." 13.

Holding that "special features in ...matrimonial matters are evident" and that it is "the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes", referring to Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojiroo Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692, it was further observed that : "11. ... Where, in the opinion of the court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings."

14.

In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court contrasted the request for quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of settlement with the possibility of compounding of an offence and observed thus :- "57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.

indictment."

15.

The above views in the context of matrimonial disputes resulting in criminal proceedings have been consistently followed over the years, as may be further illustrated by the decision of a bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Ors.

Vs.

Babita Raghuvanshi and Anr., (2013) 4 SCC 58, the following observations summarising the philosophy succinctly :- "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. The 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..."

7.

16.

In a case where criminal proceedings arise essentially out of matrimonial dispute and the parties have decided to bury the hatchet, the court must examine if there is any likelihood of the criminal prosecution resulting in conviction. In factsituation wherein the matrimonial relation has been brought to an end by mutual consent and the parties are eager to move on with their respective lives seeking closure and if there is nothing to indicate lack of bonafide on the part of any side, denial of the prayer for quashing the criminal case would restore acrimony rather than bring about peace. Allowing continuance of the criminal action would be fruitless and clearly an abuse of judicial process."

5.

The case at hand passes the above muster.

6.

In the facts and circumstances, the dispute having arisen out of matrimonial dispute, the parties having since reconciled and having decided to live together peacefully, the brother of the second respondent being also agreeable to bury hatchet in the larger interest of his sister and niece, the prayer is granted. The FIR No.251/2016, under Sections 498A/323/34 IPC, registered with Police Station New Ashok Nagar and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

7.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

R.K.GAUBA, J MAY 16, 2017 nk