Ravindra Kumar And ORS v. State (NCT Of Delhi) And ANR

$~60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RAVINDRA KUMAR AND ORS ..... Petitioners Through:

Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate with petitioner No.1 in person.

Versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Ms.Richa Kapoor, A.S.C. for the State along with Mr.Rohil Kaul, Advocate.

Respondent No.2/complainant in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

O R D E R

% 19.01.2016 Crl.M.A. No.943/2016 1.

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.

Application stands disposed of.

Crl.M.A. No.944/2016 1.

The present application has been filed on behalf of petitioners No.2 and 3 seeking exemption from their personal appearance. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners No.2 and 3 are parents of petitioner No.1, who is husband of respondent No.2/complainant. He further submits that petitioners No.2 and 3 are residents of Bihar and unable to attend the Court today and since the

matrimonial dispute has been settled between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, the personal appearance of petitioners No.2 and 3 may be exempted.

3.

Personal appearance of petitioners No.2 and 3 is exempted. 4.

Application stands disposed of.

1.

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India for quashing of FIR No.252/2013, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Ghazipur, Delhi. 2.

Briefly stating, the facts of the present case are that Respondent No.2 got married to Petitioner No.1 on 07.02.2011 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. It is mentioned in the petition that the respondent No.2 made a criminal complaint against the petitioners which resulted into registration of FIR in question. It is further mentioned in the petition that during the pendency of bail application, the matter was compromised/settled between the parties and it had been agreed that a sum of Rs.8 lacs (Rupees Eight lac) shall be paid by the petitioners to the respondent No.2/complainant towards full and final settlement of all her claims and dues. Out of the total agreed amount Rs.6 lacs had already been paid to the complainant/respondent No.2. Today Petitioner No.1 is present in person and submits that he has compromised the dispute with respondent No.2. He has handed over a sum of ₹2 lacs to the respondent No.2 today in the Court vide Demand Draft no. 074308 dated 07.01.2016, copy of which has been placed on record. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 have amicably resolved their dispute and the respondent No.2 is not left with any claim or grievance of any nature against

the petitioners. Counsel states that since the parties have settled their disputes amicably and the marriage between the parties also stands dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, no useful purpose would be served by continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners. Learned counsel thus prays for quashing of the FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising out of said FIR qua the petitioners. 5.

Respondent No.2 is present in person and submits that she has settled the matter with the Petitioners and in terms of said settlement, today she has received Rs.2 lacs 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/406/34 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.

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.

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." 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.252/2013, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Ghazipur, 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.

Order dasti.

JANUARY 19, 2016 PRATIBHA RANI, J.

da