Jugal Kishore Arora & ANR v. State & ANR

$~43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + JUGAL KISHORE ARORA & ANR ..... Petitioners Through:

Mr.Nitin Sehgal, Advocate with petitioners in person.

versus STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Sanjay Lao, A.S.C. for the State with SI Radhey Shyam, PS CAW Nanak Pura.

Respondent No.2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

O R D E R

% 04.04.2016 Crl.M.A. No.5559/2016 1.

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.

Application stands disposed of.

1.

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR No.54/2014, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Crime (Women) Cell, Delhi.

2.

Briefly stating the facts of the present case are that Respondent No.2 was married to Petitioner No.1 on 25.11.2003 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and two male children namely Master Harshvardhan and Master

Haritvardhan were born on 07.10.2004 and 17.06.2007 respectively out of the said wedlock. It is further mentioned in the petition that due to certain matrimonial disputes, the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 could not live together and started living separately with effect from 18.08.2012. Thereafter the respondent No.2 filed a criminal complaint against the Petitioners which resulted into registration of FIR in question. It is mentioned in the petition that during the pendency of above proceedings, the matter was referred to Mediation Centre where parties arrived at an amicable settlement.

3.

It has been further stated in the petition that the parties have settled the matter before Mediation Centre, Patiala House Court, Delhi and copy of the said settlement dated 14.08.2015 has been placed on record as Annexure-B.

4.

In terms of full and final settlement arrived at between the parties, today learned counsel for the Petitioners has handed over to Respondent No.2 a pay order dated 19.03.2016 for a sum of ₹3 lacs, copy of which has been placed on record.

5.

Respondent No.2 is present in person and submits that she has settled the matter with the Petitioners before Mediation Centre, Patiala House Court, Delhi and in terms of said settlement, today she has received Rs.3 lac by way of pay order dated 19.03.2016 from the Petitioners. Respondent No.2 further submits that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed qua the Petitioners.

6.

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.

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. 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." 7.

Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 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.54/2014, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Crime (Women) Cell, 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 Mediation Centre, Patiala House Court, copy of which is placed on record as Annexure-B. Order dasti.

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

APRIL 04, 2016/'st'