Jonu Kumar & ORS v. The State ( Through Govt Of NCT Of Delhi) & ANR

$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 861/2016 & Crl. M.A. 4742/16 JONU KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioners Through:

Mr.Pramod Kr. Tripathi, Advocate.

versus THE STATE ( THROUGH GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Ms.Nandita Rao, A.S.C. for the State with Ms.Srilina Roy, Advocate with SI Vikas, PS Narain.

Mr.Ravi Bhardwaj, Adv. for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

O R D E R

% 27.04.2016 1.

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of FIR No.511/2014, under Sections 498-A/406/323/506/341/34 IPC, P.S. Naraina, Delhi as well as consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties. 2.

Briefly stating the facts of the present case are that Respondent No.2 was married to Petitioner No.1 on 02.05.2014 and no issue was born out of the said wedlock. It is further mentioned in the petition that the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 could not live together and respondent No.2 left the company of petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 filed a criminal complaint against the Petitioners, on the basis of which FIR in question was registered. It is mentioned in the petition that during the pendency of above proceedings, with the intervention of elderly and respectable relatives,

parties have amicably arrived at a settlement and decided to take divorce with mutual consent. Copy of the said Memorandum of Understanding cum Settlement cum Compromise Deed dated 15.05.2015 has been placed on record as Annexure-B.

3.

Respondent No.2 is present in person and submits that she has settled the matter with the Petitioners with the intervention of elderly and respectable relatives. Respondent No.2 further submits that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed qua the Petitioners. 4.

In terms of full and final settlement arrived at between the parties, today learned counsel for the Petitioner has handed over to Respondent No.2 balance sum of Rs.3,75,000/- (Rupees Three lakh seventy five thousand only) by way of Demand Draft.

5.

Respondent No.2 is present in person and submits that she has settled the matter with the Petitioner and in terms of said settlement, today she has received Rs.3,75,000/- (Rupees Three lakh seventy five thousand only) by way of Demand Draft from the Petitioner. Respondent No.2 further submits that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed qua the Petitioner. 6.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits since the parties have settled their disputes amicably and the marriage between the parties also stands dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, no useful purpose would be served by continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Counsel thus prays for quashing of the FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising out of said FIR qua the petitioners. 7.

The FIR registered against the present Petitioners is for committing the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/406/323/506/341/34. Offences punishable under Sections 498-AIPC is a non-compoundable

offence. In the decision in the case of Gian Singh v State of Punjab & Anr. 2012 (9) SCALE 257, the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court dealing with the issue of quashing of FIR has observed as under:- "57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.

R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society.

Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute.

him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." 8.

In view of the legal position laid down in Gian Singh's case (Supra) and amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, I am of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, which will only be an exercise in futile and wastage of precious time of the Court. 9.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.511/2014, under Sections 498-A/406/323/506/341/34 IPC, P.S. Naraina, Delhi and consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. The Parties shall abide by the terms and conditions of the full and final settlement arrived at between the parties as per Memorandum of Understanding cum Settlement cum Compromise Deed dated 15.05.2015. Order dasti.

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

APRIL 27, 2016 'hkaur/da'