Charanjiv Kaliha & ANR v. State (NCT Of Delhi)

$~88 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CHARANJIV KALIHA & ANR ..... Petitioner Through Ms. Megha Katari, Adv. with petitioners in person.

versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through Mr. Izhar Ahmad, APP for State with W/SI Varsha Maan, PS Defence Colony.

R2 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA

O R D E R

% 25.04.2018 Vide the present petition, the petitioner no. 1 Charanjiv Kalha s/o Col. (Retd.) A.S. Kalha, the petitioner no. 2 Col. (Retd.) Amrik Singh Kalha s/o Sh. Zorawar Singh and the petitioner no. 3 Smt. Abha Kalha w/o Col. (Retd.) A.S. Kalha seek quashing of FIR No. 06/07, registered at PS Defence Colony, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the complaint of the respondent no. 2 i.e. the complainant thereof submitting to the effect that a settlement has since been arrived at between the parties and all disputes between them have been amicably settled.

The Investigating Officer has identified the petitioners as being the accused of the said FIR and the respondent no. 2 present today in the Court as being the complainant of the said FIR.

The learned APP for the State submits that in the circumstances of the case, there is no opposition to the prayer made by the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR in question in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

The respondent no.2 in her examination on oath by the Court has testified that she does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioner no. 1 Charanjiv Kalha s/o Col. (Retd.) A.S. Kalha, the petitioner no. 2 Col. (Retd.) Amrik Singh Kalha s/o Sh. Zorawar Singh and the petitioner no. 3 Smt. Abha Kalha w/o Col. (Retd.) A.S. Kalha seeking quashing of the FIR No. 06/07, registered at PS Defence Colony, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 nor does she want the petitioners to be punished in relation thereto, in view of the settlement arrived at between them. She has testified to having sworn her affidavit annexed to the petition as Ex.CW2/A and has testified to having signed the Memorandum of Understanding dated 30.05.2017 executed between the parties as Ex.

CW2/B and she states that she has signed both these documents voluntarily of her own accord without any duress or coercion from any quarter. The respondent no. 2 has also testified to the effect that the marriage between the respondent no. 2 and the petitioner no. 1 has been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13(B)(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide decree dated 29.01.2018 in HMA No. 277/18 of the Court of the Judge Family Court, South East, Saket, New Delhi, the certified copy of which is on the record as Ex.CW2/C.

a total sum of Rs.60 lakhs was to be paid to her and she has received a sum of Rs.40 lakhs previously from the petitioners and the balance sum of Rs.20 lakhs has been handed over to her vide a Bankers Cheque No. 964528 dated 07.02.2018 for a sum of Rs.20 lakhs drawn on State Bank of India, photocopy of which is on record as Ex.CW2/D and that now there are no claims of hers left against the petitioners. She has further testified that she is a graduate and working with a travel agency.

In view of the deposition of the respondent no.2, there appears no reason to disbelieve that she has arrived at the settlement voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter and that all the disputes between the petitioners and the respondent no. 2 have apparently been resolved and the FIR in question has apparently been registered on the basis of a matrimonial discord which has since been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13(B)(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide decree dated 29.01.2018 in HMA No. 277/18 of the Court of the Judge Family Court, South East, Saket, New Delhi, the certified copy of which is on the record as Ex.

CW2/C, it is considered essential to put a quietus to the litigation in view of the observations in the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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............................

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 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.

"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. They 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...." (emphasis supplied) it is considered appropriate to allow the prayer made by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No. 06/07, registered at PS Defence Colony, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner. In view thereof the FIR No.

Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner no. 1 Charanjiv Kalha s/o Col. (Retd.) A.S. Kalha, the petitioner no. 2 Col. (Retd.) Amrik Singh Kalha s/o Sh. Zorawar Singh and the petitioner no. 3 Smt. Abha Kalha w/o Col. (Retd.) A.S. Kalhaare quashed.

The petition is disposed of.

ANU MALHOTRA, J APRIL 25, 2018/MK

CHARANJIV KALIHA & ANR versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Statement of CW1 : W/SI Varsha Maan, PS Defence Colony, Delhi. ON S.A.

I identify the petitioner no. 1 Charanjiv Kalha s/o Col. (Retd.) A.S. Kalha, the petitioner no. 2 Col. (Retd.) Amrik Singh Kalha s/o Sh. Zorawar Singh and the petitioner no. 3 Smt. Abha Kalha w/o Col. (Retd.) A.S. Kalha as being the accused in relation to the FIR No. 06/07, registered at PS Defence Colony, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. I also identify the respondent no. 2 Ichhapurak Kaur d/o Mr. Kulbir Singh present today in the court as being the complainant of the said FIR. The proof of the identity of the petitioners and of the respondent no. 2 in the form of photocopies produced by them are Ex.CW1/A and Ex. CW1/D respectively (originals seen and returned).

RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J APRIL 25, 2018/MK

CHARANJIV KALIHA & ANR versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Statement of CW2 : Ichhapurak Kaur d/o Mr. Kulvir Singh, aged 43 years r/o D-431, First Floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi. ON S.A.

I do not oppose the prayer made by the the petitioner no. 1 Charanjiv Kalha s/o Col. (Retd.) A.S. Kalha, the petitioner no. 2 Col. (Retd.) Amrik Singh Kalha s/o Sh. Zorawar Singh and the petitioner no. 3 Smt. Abha Kalha w/o Col. (Retd.) A.S. Kalha seeking quashing of the FIR No. 06/07, registered at PS Defence Colony, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. My affidavit annexed to the petition bears my signatures thereon at points-A and B on Ex.CW2/A. The Memorandum of Understanding dated 30.05.2017 executed between me and the petitioner no. 1 also bears my signatures thereon at points-A on each page thereof on Ex.CW2/B. I have signed both these documents voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter. The marriage between me and the petitioner no.

1 has been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13(B)(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide decree dated 29.01.2018 in HMA No. 277/18 of the Court of the Judge Family Court, South East, Saket, New Delhi, the certified copy of which is on the record as Ex.CW2/C. There is no child 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.60 lakhs was to the paid to me and I have received a sum of Rs.40 lakhs previously from the petitioners and the balance sum of Rs.20 lakhs has been handed over to me vide Bankers Cheque No.

07.02.2018 for a sum of Rs.20 lakhs drawn on State Bank of India, photocopy of which is on record as Ex.CW2/D. Now there are no claims of mine left against the petitioners. I am a graduate and working with a travel agency. I have made this statement voluntarily of my own accord without any duress or coercion from any quarter.

RO & AC ANU MALHOTRA, J APRIL 25, 2018/MK