High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/40359/2022allowed

Deepak v. State Of Haryana And ANR

2024-04-2916 pages

"#$ %& '$()*)%+,,

- .

, / / .

" #

$ % &&&&& / .0 , 1"2!

' #

(

)

*+% ,

!) './0(

1)(

45 $ 6+* %078%7'+ 9

:) 1'; 3

! )

( )

*.+1 0%0 *78 5,

< !<3

$ %9

;1<

)(2)

3 -

( -) ) 3 - 787/%7%%

( <

1)(

$ %1< #

45 -

< Istridhan !

( ! ) # !

787/%7%%

( <

1)(

$ %1< 9!

< (

:) 1%; 1 "1. That the First Party is the complainant in the above stated FIR, who is the aggrieved party in the above said case and the second party is

accused, who have admittedly settled the matter amongst themselves pertaining to the abovesaid FIR.

2. That the First party (complainant, who is the signee of this compromise deed) shall have no objection if the above said FIR is quashed in this case. For this purpose, the first party is ready to give statement and also ready to appear as and when directed by the Hon'ble High Court. 3.That the First Party will cooperate the 2nd party in all the manners, for the above mentioned purpose by way of signing all kinds of application/petition/affidavits/compromise deeds or by way of coming present in person in the Hon'ble High court or before the court as per the directions of the Hon'ble High court for giving of statement to the above effect & to do all kinds of necessary paper work & requisite for the purpose.

4. That both the parties are /shall be bound with this compromise deed & further undertakes to abide by the terms and conditions of this deed.

5. That the compromise has been affected with the intervention of Panchayat and both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have filed petition under section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of their marriage with mutual consent on 0120722022 wherein the first motion statement of the parties has already been recorded and the same is fixed for 0220122023 for second motion statements of the parties. In the settlement, it was agreed between the parties that second party will pay a sum of Rs.22 Lac to the first party and her minor daughter as maintenance and permanent alimony. An amount of Rs.11 Lac has already been paid at the time of first motion statement whereas the remaining amount of Rs.11 Lac shall be paid at the time of second motion statement. In the compromise it was further agreed that both the parties will withdraw their cases, if any, pending against each other in different courts.

6. That as per the compromise, now there is no grudge between the parties and the second party has fully satisfied the first party in all the manners and поw there is no further dispute between the parties. This compromise deed has been executed in between the parties without any undue influence, coercion, threat or promise of any kind from any body & both the parties have signed and executed the present compromise deed with their own sweet & free will and consent with the intervention of the respectable person in the presence of the following witnesses to maintain the peace & harmony between the families in future."

% $

! -

< )

767.%7%% < )

$ %

- ! )-

:) 1%; 4)

%770%7%*

! 3

- !

qua ! )- !

(

2 9=)

; 3 5

%770%7%*

$ %3

- ! )- !

< )

- (

(

29=)

;3 < %' - ( 1

%770%7%* ( ,

( !

- !

2 9=)

1)( )

3 2) - ()

$ % 9

;1<

)5 )

!!)

1)( >

45?

( , <# -

! 45

< !

( , ! #

3)-

- <

%87*%7%* )3- < 0 @

) 9;( <

1)(

$ %1< < - !( ?

1)( )

9;!

- !

787/%7%%5 ( ) 3)

1)( )- %%77 !

$ %1< >!

'01

)

'.66< (

=)3 4-

707+%7%%>

$ %1< < <

( )

'%6 , ,

3 -

(

;1)( ) !

)

3 !

'.66 < < < ( -

@ 4-

707+%7%% @

) 3) - < - !( 3

3 !) -

)3 (

) <

)(

$ %1< @

) 3)

$ %1<

)

3 )

2) - !

-)3 45

- !

( <

#) ( 3) 45

3 -

- (2) 0' @

$ %1< 3) ! )-

3( ( <

(

767.%7%%

%770%7%*

3 - (

$ %1< <

)(-

- <

$ %1<

)

) - !

%770%7%*( , 0% @

! ) ! (

) )(-

:) 1%;<

( <

1)(

$ %1<

* 5

) !

-5) 6 # - )

< -)3 45 9

3 -

-; (2)

! !

!)- ! !#

) 3 )

< 45 9

3 -

-; ( 2) < !

(

- !

( < )( !!) ()

)

3) - 2) -

3)!459

-; )

8 !

*78 5 , '+87 9

A 5, '+87B; ) 1 C406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.-Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

*.+1 5 , '+87 ) 1 "4982A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine."

*+% , ,

!) './0 1 "482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.2 Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under

this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

,@< / # ! 3 - )9;

< ; )3-

B( ) -, ) 1 "7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however, contended that though the appellant had signed the compromise deed with the above2 mentioned terms in it, the same was obtained by the respondent2husband and his family under threat and coercion and in fact she did not receive lump sum maintenance and her Stridhan properties, we find it extremely difficult to accept this argument in the background of the fact that pursuant to the compromise deed the respondent2husband has given her a consent divorce which she wanted thus had performed his part of the obligation under the compromise deed. Even the appellant partially performed her part of the obligations by withdrawing her criminal complaint filed under Section 125.

It is true that she had made a complaint in writing to the Family Court where Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings were pending that the compromise deed was filed under coercion but she withdrew the same and gave a statement before the said court affirming the terms of the compromise which statement was recorded by the Family Court and the proceedings were dropped and a divorce was obtained. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant having received the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of the terms of the compromise, we cannot now accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents.

;

3 ! )3-

case (supra),

B( ) -,

)3-

!"" ) 1 C14. This Court in Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agarwal & ors., 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 949 (SC): [2004(8) Supreme 525], in almost a similar situation has quashed a criminal proceeding against the husband, stating : "....Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant having received the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of the terms of the compromise, we cannot now accept the argument of the learned counsel

for the appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents.

8. In view of the above said subsequent events and the conduct of the appellant, it would be an abuse of the process of the court if the criminal proceedings from which this appeal arises is allowed to continue...."

; )3-

$ ! %&' #( )*+,"

B( ) -, ) 1 "12. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc.

, then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines.

The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation..................D ; !

C- ! %.

/ 0 0 !

" !

0 ,1'..123*" !

'%70%7%* ,

To consider this aspect, it would be apposite to delve into the nature, scope and ambit of powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973.

9.1.

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. of 1973 is, in fact, statutory recognition of the doctrine of inherent jurisdiction of a High Court. This doctrine received statutory recognition, for the first time, when Section 5612A was inserted in Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 by way of Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment Act) of 1923. By way of introduction of Section 5612A in Cr.P.C., 1898, the legislature recognized the existence of inherent powers in a High Court and provided that nothing in the Code can be deemed to limit inherent powers of a High Court to make such order(s) as would be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Mohammad Naim (supra) has held that this Section gives no new powers to a High Court; it only provides that powers which the High Court already inherently possesses, shall be preserved and a provision has been inserted into statute book lest it be misconstrued that only those powers are possessed by the High Court which are expressly conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure & that all such inherent powers stand extinguished after the Code come into force. In essence, this provision refers to residuary plenary powers of High Court to do justice.

It is notable that such inherent powers, which received statutory recognition at the end of legislature, empowers a High Court to exercise such inherent jurisdiction not only in respect of proceedings before it but also in respect of proceedings in the Subordinate Courts. The legislature, acknowledging the significance and importance of such inherent powers, chose to keep alive the provision of Section 5612A of Cr.P.C., 1898 in the Cr.P.C. currently in vogue i.e. Cr.P.C. of 1973 albeit only by renumbering the provision as Section 482. 9.2.

The important aspect that immediately next craves attention is as to what are the "inherent powers of a High Court" recognized under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973. At the outset, it deserves to be noticed that these inherent powers are not defined in the statute. Inherent powers are essentially those powers which ipso facto exist in the Court by virtue of its existence. The phraseology of inherent powers as defined in the dictionaries is as under:2 (a) Black's Law Dictionary defines 'inherent powers' as "Existing in something as permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute."

(b) Webster's New World Law Dictionary defines it as "A power that must be deemed to exist in order for a particular responsibility to be carried out."

(c) Oxford (Advanced Learner's Dictionary) defines "inherent" as "existing as a natural or permanent feature". The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Devendrappa" (supra) has relied upon the maxim of "4 0

!5 4 0!

" 0!

! ! 0! 4 ! 6 !" !! 0 0 6 !" (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist) to hold that the inherent powers of a High Court are all such powers which are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in this judgment, has further referred to the maxim "!5 !7 8 !" to say that such powers are ones given to do real and substantial justice for which purpose alone High Court exists. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Parbatbhai (supra) has held that the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. of 1973 are aimed at preserving the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice.

9.3 A cumulative reading of the above said would show that the inherent powers of a High Court are powers which are incidental replete powers, which if did not exist so, the Court would be obliged to sit still and helplessly see process of law and Courts being abused for the purpose of injustice. These powers of a High Court hence deserve to be construed with the widest possible amplitude. It is trite posit of jurisprudence that though laws attempt to deal with all cases that may arise, the infinite variety of circumstances which shape events and the imperfections of language make it impossible to lay down provisions capable of governing every case which in fact arises. A High Court which exists for the furtherance of justice in an indefatigable manner should, therefore, have unfettered power to deal with situations which, though not expressly provided for by the law, need to be dealt with to prevent injustice or an abuse of the process of law and Courts. 9.4.

Accordingly, it is unequivocal that the inherent powers of a High Court; recognized by way of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. of 1973; are powers which are unbridled, unfettered and plenary in nature. These powers are to be exercised keeping in view the following salutary purposes viz; (a) to give effect to any order passed under the code (b) to prevent abuse of process of any Court (c) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither conceivable nor desirable to lay down any exhaustive set of guideline(s) to govern the exercise of this plenary inherent jurisdiction, however alluring this aspect may be. Such exercise of power would definitely be dependent upon the factual matrix of the case which the court is seisin of."

; !

C$ 0 ! % '08 7 0 !

0 ,1'..12*2"!

'%7%%7%* ,

<1 "10.

Section 4982A of IPC was brought, by way of an Act of 1983, into the IPC with a salutary principle for curbing the evil of dowry which has been unfortunately prevailing in our Society since long. A bare perusal of the statement of Objects and Reasons for enactment of 1983 Act endorses this aspect of the matter.

10.1 More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the celebrated judgment of Arnesh Kumar'scase (supra)has extensively dealt with the issue of deliberate and rampant misuse of provisions of Section 4982A of IPC as a tool of harassment by a disgruntled wife. The Courts are flooded with cases where it is found that the complainant2wife has misused the provision of Section 4982A of IPC to settle score(s) with her husband and his family members, but at the same time it cannot be ignored that in very many cases such allegations of dowry harassment made by the wife turn out to be true.

This Court cannot also lose sight of growing lack of a family level/Social Forum for redressal of grievance(s) of a wife arising out of matrimonial acrimony and therefore criminal proceedings under Section 4982A of IPC are launched at the instance of such wife on her being left with no other alternative redressal forum. Therefore, in many cases, the wife tends to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 4982A of IPC against her husband as also his relatives as a means of a solution seeking redressal mechanism. In other words, in large number of cases, the criminal prosecution under Section 4982A of IPC at the instance of a disgruntled wife are launched for settlement of the matrimonial discord in one way or the other."

9 <; + # )3 !

*.+1 < (

5, ( < -

3! '.+0 < ) (!

!) (

< () ) : !

3< !

*78 5, (

( !

1< !

9; < )( -

--( # ,

! $ 0 9) ; (

! <

*.+1 5,3

)(

- Asolution seeking redressal mechanism' ! )

!) - )-

) !!

) <

)) 3)

() <

- ) ( !

)9<

3 !

! !

# !- )! !

9< ; :! ( < -

)

inter alia, !! (

)

! )

E ( !

( ( )

! $ ! -

( 1 )

)

)- !(

, 9;Ergo , )3 ( ) !)

)

3< )!! -)

3- !

)

3 -

!#, !

( (

) !

3 3- !

! !

-# 3,

! < )

*+% , , './0> )3 !

! ( !

< +' 5 ( (

)

< !!)1)(

--(

(

)

3 ! <

3 45

2) #

B( ) - ,

(supra)

9) ; : < )!

)

9;?

! < (

)3 < ) !

( - )!!

! (

) 2)

)! )!<

- !)

3 - )(

--( 5 !

) ) ! !

(

)

) !

( !

() 1!

) !

)

)(

(

- ) )

1)$

< >

)!!

) ! < +% #

: < 3 ,

( < :

< ) !

*+% , , ! 2))! 459

)! )

B( ) -,

(supra)

9) ;# ) !

-( < 3 , ) !

*+% , , './0 ( !

)

! - 9) ; #

) 3 3, >

)

*+%

, ,> ) ( ) < #

: )! <

) : : )!

! < ( 3 , )

) !

(< ( 3,

! !

!)- ! 3 ! +0 #

B( ) -,

! 9) ;

! :

)

3 3 , < ( )

!)- ! ! 3

( <

459

-;5 !

)! ( ) ! 3

- < )3) ! )3 (-

<- ( 3 ) !!

> 3,

< )

*+% , , './0>! <

Cread between the linesD :-

Cattending circumstancesD

! ! !

!)- ! <

. 2) ( !)

3 59 ; 5 45

- -

) <

< ( !

(

( !!)1 )( )! 459

-; (2)

; ! (

> !

< - () 1!

9; )!

)

) ! <

)! 9; )3 ()(

( ( - - (

3 <

) !4)

(

3 < )! 9;

, - !

3 !

< )

( 9; !

) ) ! )!!

55 !< !!) )( ) -

) ! !

? )! !!) <

)

) -

3 ! 9;

- )! !

> 3 , <

( <

)

) !

*+% , , './0

( !

)!2)

)

) -

3! 9; (

3 ) ( !!) )( 555 $ !

:) 3)

! ( ( 1 <

3 ! < )

2) ! ) !

! ) $ 3, -:

! < )

*+% , , './0!

! !

!)- !

!) !

9 ! ; '7 $ < , ! !

)

'7' ! (

1)( >

3 - 707+%7%%<

( <

1)(

$ %1< !

3 )

1)(

)- %%77 ! < < -

! -

$ %1< -

)3 (

) <

!> -) ) !

! !

( ( !

707+%7%%>

1)( < <

707+%7%%

( - ) !

)

3 !

'.66 ?

$ %1< < <

707+%7%%

( )

'%6 , , './0

3 -

! -

)3 5 !!

)( (

$ %1 <

(

- !

< < -

( ?

3 ) -

(

1)( -)! >

$ %1<

)3 !

- ! )- !

< ! !

767.%7%% %770%7%*( , '7% #

'+7*%7%* ( !

=) 3

1)( )

)

3 - !

%770%7%*

( , ? 5 3

3 ! ! (

3 )(-

1)( <

- ( , < #

$ %!

)

) - !

! ) (!

lis '70 # ( ! ) - : !

)

-)3 45

3() ()

! < , $

3:! - < (!)

1)(

) ) !

-)3 45 !

) # ,

< )

*+% , , './0 !

(:! )

Nelson's eye :

)

- 9;( !

))

)

- )

! <

, ! < (:

) ! -)3 459

-; 2) '7*

3< )3-

$ %1<

- bona fide - - )

! <, )3 ( #

(

( (3

< !

(

( <

(

! )! - 9;

Ergo

$ %1< ( < < !

)3 (

) ( -!

'' < (

< ; # -)3 45$ 6+* %078%7'+ 3

! )

( ) !

*.+1 0%0 *78 5,

- 2)

; #

$ %1< < !

67 7771 < !

( ( < , =) 3 9,=;

- 5 !)!!

>,=

- - @3

!, -- !) 5 ! !

(

$ %1<

> ,=

- ) , --

)!!

$ %1<

) )

) , --

-)(- ,=

) - ! @3

!, -- !) !

( ( ,=

) , --

, !!

; 3

! - !

)3-

$ %1< >,=

) , --

2) !

/ .!

%7%* Ajay G

E G

( E