Gurcharan Singh @ Bobby & ORS v. State (Gnct Of Delhi) & ANR

$~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1951/2016 GURCHARAN SINGH @ BOBBY & ORS ..... Petitioner Through Ms Avtar Kaur Dhingra, Adv. alongwith petitioners in person versus STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) & ANR ..... Respondent Through Ms Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State alongwith ASI Jay Prakash and Sub Inspector Rajbeer Singh Police Station CWC Nanakpura, Delhi R2 in person

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 20.05.2016 This is a petition under S. 482 Cr.PC moved by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.2/2011 registered at Police Station CWC, Nanakpura, New Delhi under Ss 406/498A/34 IPC and consequent proceedings emanating therefrom on the ground that the parties have compromised the matter.

It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that basically it is a matrimonial dispute. The petitioner no.2 got married with the petitioner no.1 on 14.02.2009 according to Hindu rites and customs at Delhi. The relationship between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 could not be continued due to temperamental differences and they have been living separately since November, 2009. Both parties tried their level best to settle their differences mutually by themselves so as to lead the future married life with mutual understanding and in harmonious relationship but could not succeed. The respondent no.2 filed a complaint before CAW Cell against the petitioner no.1 and his family members on the basis of which instant FIR was registered. The respondent no.2 also filed a complaint under S. 12 of DV Act.

The disputes pending between the parties were settled on 21.07.2014 and in this regard statement of both the parties were recorded which have also been filed alongwith the petition. As per the terms and conditions of settlement, the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 has been dissolved by a decree of mutual divorce by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide order dated 21.09.2015, copy of which has also been placed on record. The petitioner no.1 had already paid a sum of Rs.1 lac to the respondent no.2 and the petitioner no.1 has also paid the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- in cash today in the Court.

that the instant FIR be quashed.

The respondent No.2/complainant, who is present in person (duly identified by the Investigating Officer of the case) submits that she has amicably resolved all disputes with the petitioners voluntarily without there being any threat, coercion or pressure of any sort. She further submits that she has received the total settlement amount of Rs.1.50 lacs from the petitioners. As such, it is submitted by her that she does not want any action against the petitioners and has no objection to quashing the instant FIR. Ms Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, she has no objection to quashing of FIR, however, since the State machinery has been set in motion on account of the acts of the petitioners, they be burdened with costs.

Needless to say, offences with which the petitioners are booked are non-compoundable. However in the case of Gian Singh v State of Punjab & Anr. 2012 (9) Scale 257, the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of quashing of FIR in non compoundable offences. Para 57 of the report is extracted hereunder:- "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.

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 flavour 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.

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." In view of the same, since it is a matrimonial dispute which the parties have amicably resolved, continuation of the criminal proceedings would be a futile exercise and it will be rather in the ends of justice to give quietus to such litigation.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the FIR No.2/2011 registered at Police Station CWC, Nanakpura, New Delhi under Ss 406/498A/34 IPC and consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

A copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the petitioners. SUNITA GUPTA, J MAY 20, 2016/rd