Sourabh Dhingra & ORS v. The State Of Delhi & ANR

$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + SOURABH DHINGRA & ORS ..... Petitioners Through:

Mr.Puneet Khurana, Advocate with petitioners in person versus THE STATE OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Ms.Neha Dhir, Advocate for Ms.Nandita Rao, A.S.C. for the State with W/SI Upkar Kaur PS Rani Bagh Mr.Naveen Sharma & Mr.Yogesh Chauhan, Advocates for R-2 with R-2 in person

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

O R D E R

% 03.06.2016 CRL.M.A.9658/2016 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

1.

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.244/2013, under Sections 498-A/406 IPC registered at P.S. Rani Bagh, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners.

2.

Briefly stating the facts of the present case are that Respondent No.2 was got married to Petitioner No.1 on 28th April, 2009 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. On 3rd March, 2010, one child was born from the said wedlock. It is further mentioned in the petition that due to temperamental and other differences, the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 could not live together and started living separately since 28th March, 2013. On 30th July, 2013, Respondent No.2 filed a complaint on the basis of which FIR in question was registered.

3.

It has been further stated in the petition that the parties have settled their disputes amicably as per the Memorandum of Understanding and copy of the said settlement dated 1st May, 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 demand draft for a sum of ` 3,00,000/-. 5.

Respondent No.2 is present in person and submits that she has settled the matter with the Petitioners as per MoU dated 1st May, 2015 and in terms of said settlement, today she has received a Demand Draft for a sum of `3,00,000/- 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 IPC. Offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is a non-compoundable offence. In the decision reported as 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.

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.

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. 8.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.244/2013, under Sections 498-A/406 IPC registered at P.S. Rani Bagh, 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 as per Memorandum of Understanding, copy of which is placed on record as Annexure-B. Order dasti.

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

JUNE 03, 2016 'pg'