Amit & ORS v. Asha & ANR

$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + AMIT & ORS ..... Petitioners Through:

Ms.Upma Yadav and Mr.Rahul Girsa, Advocates with petitioners in person.

versus ASHA & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Respondent No.1/complainant in person.

Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, A.S.C. for the State/R-2 with SI Akhileshwar, PS Moti Nagar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

O R D E R

% 10.02.2016 1.

By way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek quashing of FIR bearing No.709/2014 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Moti Nagar, Delhi and all the proceedings arising therefrom. 2.

Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1/complainant was solemnized on 23.02.2012 at Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of the said wedlock, one male child namely Master Vihan was born. It is stated in the petition that in May 2013, some temperamental differences arose between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 due to which respondent No.1 left

the company of petitioner No.1 and lodged a criminal complaint against the petitioners, which resulted into registration of FIR in question against the petitioners.

3.

It is also stated that during the pendency of proceedings, the parties arrived at an amiable settlement with the intervention of the respectable persons of the society.

4.

Parties are present in person alongwith counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.1 have amicably resolved their dispute and started living together. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and have no grievance whatsoever left against each other, no useful purpose would be served by continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, hence FIR in question may be quashed. 5.

Complainant/respondent No.1 is present in Court today and she also confirms the factum of amicable settlement with the petitioners. She submits that she alongwith her son has now started living together with the petitioner No.1 at her matrimonial house and she has no grievance left against the petitioners. She further submits that she has no objection if the FIR in question and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed. 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.

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 bearing No.709/2014 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Moti Nagar, Delhi and all the proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Order dasti.

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

FEBRUARY 10, 2016 'st'