Bhoodev & ORS v. The State ( NCT Of Delhi) & ANR

$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2016/2018 & CRL.M.A. 7143/2018 BHOODEV & ORS ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Madhu Hooda, Adv.

versus THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for State with ASI Mahender, PS Bawana.

Counsel for R-2 with R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA

O R D E R

% 19.04.2018 Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.410/2015, registered at PS Bawana, under Sections 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom submitting to the effect that a settlement has since been arrived at between the parties.

The Investigating Officer of the case present today in Court has identified the petitioner no. 1 Shri Bhoodev, s/o late Shri Subey Singh, petitioner no.2 Shri Jagmati, w/o late Shri Subey Singh, petitioner no.3 Smt. KUsum Lata, d/o late Shri Subey Singh as being the accused arrayed in FIR No.410/2015, registered at PS Bawana, under Sections 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and has also identified the respondent no.2 Ms. Poonam present today in Court as being the complainant thereof. The proofs of page no.1 of 5

identity of the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 and of the respondent no. 2 in the form of photocopies of their Aadhar Cards are on the record as Ex. CW1/A to Ex. CW1/D respectively. (Originals seen and returned.) The respondent no.2 in her deposition on oath on examination by the Court has testified to having sworn her affidavit annexed to the petition as Ex.CW2/A and has further testified to the effect that she has also signed the settlement arrived at between her and the petitioners vide a settlement agreement arrived at the Counselling Cell, Family Court (North District), Rohini, Delhi, copy of which is on the record as Ex. CW2/B voluntarily of her own accord without any duress or coercion from any quarter. The respondent no.2 has further testified to the effect that the marriage between her and the petitioner no.

1 has been dissolved vide decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13(B)(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide decree dated 07.03.2018 of the Court of the Judge, Family Court (North District), Rohini, Delhi in HMA No. 420/2018 attested copy of which is on the record as Ex. CW2/C and she further stated that there is no child born of the wedlock between her and the petitioner no.1 and as per the settlement Ex. CW2/B, a total sum of Rs. 5.50 lakhs was to be paid to her by the petitioners, of which a sum of Rs.3 lakh has been received by her previously and the balance sum of Rs.2.50 lakhs has been handed over to her by the petitioner today in Court in the form of a Demand Draft bearing no.194220 dated 03.04.2018 in her favour drawn on the Corporation Bank, copy of which is on the record as Ex. CW2/D.

She has further stated to the effect that there are no claims of hers left against the petitioners now and thus she does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking page no.

quashing of the FIR in question and does not want the petitioners to be punished in relation to the offences punishable under Section 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Learned APP for the State submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, there is no opposition to the prayer made by the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR in question. The respondent no.2 is fairly educated having studied upto Standard 12th and she is pursuing her studies and there being 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 the circumstances of the case, it is considered appropriate to put a quietus to the litigation between the parties for maintenance of peace and harmony between them, in view of the observations in the verdict 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 page no.

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 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 observations in 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. 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 page no.4 of 5

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.410/2015, registered at PS Bawana, under Sections 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners are quashed. ANU MALHOTRA, J APRIL 19, 2018 vm page no.5 of 5

BHOODEV & ORS Vs. THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

Statement of CW1 : ASI Mahender Singh, PS Bawana, Delhi. ON S.A.

I identify the petitioner no. 1 Shri Bhoodev, s/o late Shri Subey Singh, petitioner no.2 Shri Jagmati, w/o late Shri Subey Singh, petitioner no.3 Smt. Kusum Lata, d/o late Shri Subey Singh as being the accused arrayed in FIR No.410/2015, registered at PS Bawana, under Sections 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860. I also identify the respondent no.2 Ms. Poonam present today in Court as being the complainant thereof. The proofs of identity of the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 and of the respondent no. 2 in the form of photocopies of their Aadhar Cards are on the record as Ex. CW1/A to Ex. CW1/D respectively. (Originals seen and returned.) There are no other persons arrayed as accused in the said FIR. ANU MALHOTRA, J RO & AC APRIL 19, 2018

BHOODEV & ORS Vs. THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

Statement of CW2 : Smt. Poonam, d/o Shri Satbir Singh, aged 24 years, r/o H.No.214, Village Auchandi, New Delhi. ON S.A.

My affidavit annexed to the petition bears my signature thereon at points-A & B on Ex.CW2/A. A settlement has since been arrived at between me and the petitioner vide a settlement agreement arrived at the Counselling Cell, Family Court (North District), Rohini, Delhi which bears my signature thereon at point-A on Ex. CW2/B. I have signed both these documents voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter.

In terms of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioners, the marriage between me and the petitioner no.1 has been dissolved vide decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13(B)(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide decree dated 07.03.2018 of the Court of the Judge, Family Court (North District), Rohini, Delhi in HMA No. 420/2018 attested copy of which is on the record as Ex. CW2/C. There is no child born of the wedlock between me and the petitioner no.1 In terms of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioners, a total sum of Rs. 5.50 lakhs was to be paid by the petitioners, of which a sum of Rs.3 lakh has been received by me previously and the balance sum of Rs.2.50 lakhs has been handed over to me by the petitioner today in Court in the form of a Demand Draft bearing no.194220 dated 03.04.2018 in my

favour drawn on the Corporation Bank, copy of which is on the record as Ex. CW2/D. There are no claims of mine left against the petitioners now. I do not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR No.410/2015, registered at PS Bawana, under Sections 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 in view of the settlement arrived at between me and the petitioners nor do I want the petitioners to be punished in relation thereto.

I have studied upto standard 12th and I am pursuing my studies. I have made this statement voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter. ANU MALHOTRA, J RO & AC APRIL 19, 2018