Ashok Kumar Vaswani &ANR. v. State & ANR.

$~56 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 1394/2017 ASHOK KUMAR VASWANI &ANR.

..... Petitioners Through:

Mr. Nischal Joshi, Adv.

versus STATE & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC ASI Manoj Kumar, P.S. Rani Bagh Mr. Rajat Sharma, Adv. for R-2 along with R-2 in person

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R D E R

% 08.05.2017 Crl.M.A.7691/2017 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 1394/2017 The petitioners seek quashing of the FIR No.531/2015 dated 20.07.2015 (P.S. Rani Bagh) instituted for the offences under Sections 498A/406 and 34 of the IPC.

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are parents-in-laws of respondent No.2 whereas petitioner No.3 is the daughter of petitioner Nos.1 & 2. Respondent No.2, Vanisha Vaswani @ Bharti Bhatia was married to one Deepak Vaswani, son of petitioner Nos.1 & 2 in the year 2013. After the

marriage of the respondent No.2 and her husband started residing separately from the petitioners.

In the year 2015 the subject FIR was lodged against the petitioners under Section 498A/406 and 34 of the IPC. Incidentally the husband of respondent No.2 was not made an accused.

With the intervention of family friends and well wishers a settlement was arrived at before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Rohini Courts, Delhi. As per the settlement, the petitioner No.2 withdrew the appeal under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act from the Court and likewise the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C by petitioner Nos.1 & 2 was also withdrawn. The husband of the respondent No.2 had filed a civil suit No.109/2015 which too was withdrawn.

Considering that there has been a settlement of all disputes, this Court is inclined to quash the subject FIR.

In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court has held that cases which are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. could also be quashed, when continuation of any criminal proceeding would be an exercise in futility and where justice demands that the dispute between the parties should be put to an end and peace is restored. But ending of such criminal proceedings could only be ordered for securing the ends of justice.

The Supreme Court has further observed in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another (Supra):

"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 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) SCC 675;

Nikhil Merchant, (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma, (2008) 16 SCC 1.] Thus, the inherent powers of the High Court, having a wide plenitude could be used for quashing the FIR for securing the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. For the reasons afore-recorded, the FIR No.531/2015 dated

20.07.2015 (P.S. Rani Bagh) instituted for offences under Sections 498A/406 and 34 of the IPC is quashed and the proceedings emanating from it, as no useful purpose will be served in keeping the investigation in the case pending.

Thus, the petition is disposed of in above mentioned terms. ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J MAY 08, 2017 k