Monu Yadav & ORS v. The State ( NCT Of Delhi) & ANR
$~64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MONU YADAV & ORS ..... Petitioners Through:
Mr.Deepak Mohan Singh, Advocate versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondents Through:
Ms.Nandita Rao, A.S.C. for the State with ASI Tej Ram PS Najafgarh Mr.Rahul Gulia, Advocate for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
O R D E R
% 21.03.2016 1.
The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners praying for quashing of FIR No.38/2014, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Najafgarh, Delhi as well as the proceedings emanating 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 got married to Petitioner No.1 on 08.02.2012 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After some time, differences arose between the couple and respondent No.2 filed a 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, the matter has been amicably settled before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dwarka, Delhi. 3.
Parties are present in person with their respective counsel. 4.
In terms of settlement arrived at between the parties, Petitioner No.1 was to pay a total sum of Rs.26,00,000/- lacs (Rs.Twenty six Lacs only) to
Respondent No.2 towards full and final settlement of all her claims. It is mentioned in the petition that petitioner No.1 had already paid Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lacs only) to Respondent No.2. 5.
Respondent No.2 is present in person and submits that she has settled the matter with the Petitioners before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dwarka, Delhi and in terms of said settlement, today she has received Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) by way of Bankers'Cheque. Respondent No.2 further submits that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed qua the Petitioners.
6.
It has been recorded in the judgment of the the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dwarka, Delhi dated 30.05.2015 that the remaining settled amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) shall be paid by the petitioner No.1. at the time of quashing of two FIRs i.e. FIR No.38/2014 and 442/2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner No.1 submits that since in FIR No.442/2013, the charge sheet had already been filed, the same is listed before another Bench. He further submits that the petitioner No.1. is handing over a Bankers' Cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) to the Respondent No.2 today in Court and the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) shall be paid at the time of quashing of FIR No.442/2013, to which the Respondent No.2 has no objection. 7.
The FIR registered against the present Petitioners is for committing the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC. Offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC 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.
In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim.
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.
Learned counsel for the petitioners and complainant submit that after the matter in dispute has been amicably settled between the parties, no purpose would be served in prosecuting the petitioners, therefore the FIR in question and criminal proceedings emanating therefrom may be quashed. 9.
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. 10.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and quashing of FIR No.38/2014, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Najafgarh, 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 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohini Courts, Delhi. Order dasti.
MARCH 21, 2016 PRATIBHA RANI, J.
'pg/da'