Del HC 498A Judgment

 

The Indian Jurist | www.theindianjurist.com

*   +

IN TH THE E HIG HIGH H COU OUR RT OF DEL DELHI HI AT NE NEW W DEL DELHI HI CRL CRL.M.C .M.C.. 126 1261/2 1/2016 016 & Crl Crl.M.A .M.A.. No. No.543 5431/2 1/2016 016 th Date of Decision: November 17 , 2016 SANJAY MISHRA & ANR ..... Petitioners

Throu Th rough: gh:

Mr Mr.. Kir Kirti ti Mad Madan, an, Ad Advo vocate cate

versus STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Throu Th rough: gh: Mr Mr.. M.P M.P.. Sin Singh, gh, Ad Addit dition ional al Public Public Prosecutor for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, J. 1. Th Thee p pres resent ent pet petitio ition nu und nder er Sect Section ion 482 Cr.P Cr.P.C. .C. has bee been n file filed db by y

the petitioners, namely, Sh. Sanjay Mishra and Smt. Kalpana Tiwari for quashing of FIR No.260/2003 dated 10.06.2003, under Sections 498-A/406 IPC registered at Police Station Pandav Nagar on the basis of a settlement between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2, namely, Smt. Asha Mishra. 2.

Le Lear arne ned d Ad Addi diti tion onal al Pu Publ blic ic Pr Pros osec ecut utor or for re resp spon onde dent nt-S -Sta tate te

submi sub mitted tted that the res respon ponden dentt No No.2, .2, pr presen esentt in the Cou Court rt has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question  by SI Mahesh. 3.

The factu actual al ma matr trix ix,, in br brie ieff, of th thee pre ressen entt case case is that that th thee

marri arriag agee wa wass so sole lem mnize nized d be betw twee een n th thee pe peti titi tion oner er no no.1 .1 an and d th thee respondent no.2 on 26.04.2002 according to Hindu rites. It is the case of the complainant that the in-laws and husband of the complainant were dissatisfied with the dowry brought in by the complainant at the time of marriage and that they would torture her for the same. The

Crl.M.C. 1261/2016

Page  1  of  8  8

 

The Indian Jurist | www.theindianjurist.com

complainant left her matrimonial home, unable to bear the torture. Thereafter, the complainant got lodged the complaint following which wh ich the FIR FIR in qu quest estio ion n wa wass re regi gist ster ered ed ag agai ains nstt th thee peti petiti tion oner ers. s. Duri Du ring ng the the pe pend nden ency cy of the the pr proc oceed eedin ings gs,, th thee matt atter er wa wass set settle tled d  between the accused persons and the respondent no.2. 4.

Resp espon onde den nt No.2 .2,, pres presen entt in the Cou ourt rt,, sub submit itte ted d th that at th thee

disp disput utee be betw twee een n the the part partie iess ha hass been been am amica icably bly re reso solve lved d wi with th th thee inte interv rven enti tion on of the the resp respec ecta tabl blee pe pers rson onss of the soci society ety.. As pe perr th thee settlement, petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 agreed to take divorce  by way of mutual consent. It is agreed that petitioner no.1 shall pay a sum sum of Rs. 4. 4.88 88 La Lakh khss to towa ward rdss fu full ll an and d final final set settle tleme ment nt of all th thee cl clai aim ms aris arisin ing g ou outt of th thei eirr mar arri riag agee wh whic ich h in incl clud udes es pe perm rman anen entt alimony alim ony,, dow dowry ry art article icles, s, istr istridh idhan, an, ma mainte intenan nance ce (pa (past, st, pre presen sentt and future) etc. It is also agreed that the above mentioned amount shall be  paid in the manner enunciated in the terms of the settlement. It is also agreed that the out of the above said amount, petitioner no.1 shall pay a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh to respondent no.2 in the manner enunciated in the the ter term ms of the the Se Settl ttlem emen entt at the time of qu quash ashin ing g of th thee FIR FIR in question and that respondent no.2 shall cooperate with the petitioners for the same. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settl set tlem emen ent. t. Al Alll th thee di disp sput utes es an and d di diff ffer eren ence cess have have be been en re reso solv lved ed through thro ugh mutual consen consent. t. Now no dispu dispute te with petition petitioners ers surv survives ives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of the respondent No.2 has been recorded in this regard in which she stated that she has entered into a compromise with the  petitioners and has settled all the disputes with them. She further 

Crl.M.C. 1261/2016

Page  2  of  8  8

 

The Indian Jurist | www.theindianjurist.com

stated that she has no objection objection if the FIR in ques question tion is quas quashed. hed. 5.

In  Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303   Apex

Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:“61. In oth other wor words, the the Hig High Cou Court mu must co con nsider  whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue continue with the criminal proceeding proceedingss or continuation continuation of  criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of  law despite despite settlem settlement ent and compro compromis misee betwee between n the vic victim tim and the 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 the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal  proceedings.”

6. Th Thee af afor ores esai aid d di dictu ctum m st stan ands ds rrei eite tera rate ted d by the Ap Apex ex C Cou ourt rt iin n a recent judgment in  N  Na ar i nd nde er Si Singh ngh v. St S tate of Punja Punjab b (2014 (2014)) 6 SC C 

466.  The relevant observations of the Apex Court in  Narinder Singh (Supra)  are as under:“29.  In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would  be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement  between the parties and exercising its it s power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the  proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: 29.1   Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be disti di sting ngui uish shed ed fro from m th thee po power wer wh whic ich h lie liess in the Co Cour urtt to compou com pound nd the offences offences und under er Sec Sectio tion n 320 of th thee Cod Code. e. No doubt, dou bt, und under er Sec Section tion 482 of the Code, the Hig High h Cou Court rt has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those casess whi case which ch are not compound compoundabl able, e, whe where re the par partie tiess hav havee settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

Crl.M.C. 1261/2016

Page  3  of  8  8

 

The Indian Jurist | www.theindianjurist.com

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that  basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure secure::

(i) ends of justice, or  (ii) to abuse of po thewer process anyCo court. cour Whil Wh ileeprevent exer ex ercis cising ing the powe r th thee of High Hi gh Cour urttt. is to fo form rm an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions whic wh ich h in inv vol olve ve he hein inou ouss an and d se seri riou ouss of offe fen nce cess of me ment ntal al deprav dep ravity ity or off offenc ences es lik likee mur murder der,, rap rape, e, dac dacoit oity, y, etc. Suc Such h offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on soci so ciet ety. y. Sim Simila ilarl rly, y, fo forr the of offe fenc nces es al alle lege ged d to ha have ve bee been n comm co mmit itte ted d un unde derr sp spec ecia iall st stat atut utee li like ke th thee Pr Prev even enti tion on of  Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 29.4.  On th thee ot othe herr ha hand nd,, th tho ose cr crim imin inal al cas ases es hav avin ing g over erwh whel elmi min ngly and an d pre redo domi mina nant ntly ly civ ci vil char ch arac acte terr,  particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or  arisin ari sing g out of mat matrim rimon onial ial rel relatio ationsh nship ip or fam family ily disp disputes utes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

7.

Th Thee iinhe nheren rentt p pow owers ers of the Hig High hC Cour ourtt ough oughtt tto ob bee eexer xercise cised d to

 prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The respondent no.2 agrees to the quashing of the FIR in question without any threat or coercion or undue influence and has stated that the matter has been settled out of her own free will. As the matter has  been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be an ex extr trao aord rdin inary ary delay delay in th thee pr proc oces esss of la law w if the le lega gall pr proc ocee eedi ding ngss  between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

Crl.M.C. 1261/2016

Page  4  of  8  8

 

The Indian Jurist | www.theindianjurist.com

8.

Th Thee in incor corpo porati ration on of inh inhere erent nt po power wer und under er Sect Section ion 48 482 2C Cr.P r.P.C. .C.

is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provision of law to secu secure re the the en ends ds of ju justi stice ce such such as, wh wher eree th thee pr proc oces esss is abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured; where the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid the causing of harassment to any person by using the provision of Cr.P.C. or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery of justice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent the express provisions of law. 9.

It is sett settled led law tha thatt the the iinhe nheren rentt p powe owerr o off the the H High igh Cou Court rt u und nder  er 

Sectio Sec tion n 482 Cr. Cr.P.C P.C.. sho should uld be use used d spa sparin ringly gly.. Th Thee Ho Hon’b n’ble le Ap Apex ex Court in the case of  St   S tate of of Maha Mahar ash shttr a thro through ugh CB I v. V i kr kra am

 A  Ana nattr ai D osh shii and Ors. M A NU NU//SC/ SC /0842 0842//2014 2014   and in the case of  I nde nder Singh Si ngh G oswa swami v. Sta Statte of Utta Uttar anch ncha al M A N U/ U/SC SC//0808/ 0808/20 2009 09 has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised spar sparin ingl gly y, car caref eful ully ly an and d wi with th gr great eat ca caut utio ion. n. On Only ly wh when en th thee Co Cour urtt comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there woul wo uld d be ab abus usee of th thee proc proces esss of th thee Co Cour urtt if su such ch po pow wer is no nott exercised, Court would quash the proceedings. 10.. It is a wel 10 welll set settle tled d law th that at wh wher eree the Hi High gh Co Cour urtt is conv convin ince ced d that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of  such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such such cas cases es,, pu purs rsui uing ng pros prosecu ecutio tion n wo woul uld d be wa waste ste of ti time me an and d energy.. Nonenergy Non-compo compoundab undable le offences are basica basically lly an obstruc obstruction tion in

Crl.M.C. 1261/2016

Page  5  of  8  8

 

The Indian Jurist | www.theindianjurist.com

en ente teri ring ng into into co comp mpro romi mise se..

In ce cert rtai ain n cas cases es,, th thee ma main in of offe fenc ncee is

compoundab compo undable le but the connected offe offences nces are not. In the case of  B.S.   B.S.

 J  Jo oshi shi and other her s v. Stat State of H ar yana and ano notther her 20 2003 03 (4) SC SCC C 675 675 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of  Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. The Hon’ Cr.P.C Hon’ble ble Apex Court laid down tha thatt if for the purp purpose ose of  securin secu ring g the end endss of jus justic tice, e, qu quash ashing ing of FIR bec becom omes es nec necess essary ary,, section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of  quas qu ashi hing ng..

In the the nutsh utshel ell, l, th thee Ho Hon’ n’bl blee Ap Apex ex Co Cour urtt ju just stif ifie ied d th thee

exercise of powers under Sect ctio ion n 482 Cr Cr.P .P.C .C.. to quash the  proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts and circumstan circumstances ces of the cas case, e, eve even n whe where re the of offen fences ces wer weree non non-compoundable. In th thee ligh lightt of th thee af afor ores esai aid d, th this is Co Cour urtt is of th thee vi view ew th that at notwithstanding the fact the offence under Section 498A IPC is a noncompoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant. 11.   Th Thee Co Cour urts ts in Indi India a ar aree no now w no norm rmal ally ly ta taki king ng the vi view ew th that  at  endeavour should be taken to promote conciliation and secure speedy  settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs such as, matrimonial disputes between the couple or/and between the wife and  her in-laws. India being a vast country naturally has large number of   married persons resulting into high numbers of matrimonial disputes due to differences in temperament, life-styles, opinions, thoughts etc.

Crl.M.C. 1261/2016

Page  6  of  8  8

 

The Indian Jurist | www.theindianjurist.com

between such couples, due to which majority is coming to the Court to th

 get redressal. In its 59

report, the Law Commission of India had 

emphasized that while dealing with disputes concerning the family, the Cour Co urtt ou ough ghtt to ad adop optt an ap appr proa oach ch radi radica call llyy di diffe ffere rent nt fr from om th that  at  adop ad opte ted d in or ordi din nar aryy ci civi vill pro roce ceed edin ings gs an and d th that at it sh shou ould ld ma make ke reasonable efforts at settlement before the commencement of the trial.  Further it is also the constitutional mandate for speedy disposal of    such disputes and to grant quick justice to the litigants. But, our  Courts are already over burdened due to pendency of large number of   cases cas es bec becaus ausee of wh which ich it beco becomes mes di diffic fficult ult for speed speedyy dis dispos posal al of    matrimonial disputes alone. As the matrimonial disputes are mainly between the husband and the wife and personal matters are involved  in suc such h dis dispu putes tes,, so, it req requir uires es con concil ciliat iatory ory pro proced cedure ure to bri bring ng a  settlement between them. Nowadays, mediation has played a very impo im porta rtant nt role role in sett settlin ling g th thee di disp sput utes es,, es espe pecia ciall lly, y, ma matri trimo moni nial  al  disput dis putes es and has yiel yielded ded good resu results lts.. The Court mu must st exer exercise cise its in inhe here rent nt po powe werr un unde derr Sect Sectio ion n 482 482 Cr Cr.P .P.C .C.. to pu putt an en end d to th thee matri ma trimo monia niall litig litigat atio ions ns at the the ea earl rlie iest st so tha thatt th thee pa parti rties es ca can n liv livee  peacefully. 12. Sin Since ce th thee subj subject ect m matte atterr of th this is FI FIR R is es essen sential tially ly matrim matrimoni onial, al, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties, ther theref efor ore, e, co cont ntin inua uanc ncee of pr proc ocee eedi ding ngss ar aris isin ing g ou outt of th thee FI FIR R in question would be an exercise in futility and is a fit case for this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction. 13.

In th thee fact factss and ccirc ircum umsta stances nces o off thi thiss case case,, in vie view w of st statem atement ent

made by the respondent No.2 and the compromise arrived at between

Crl.M.C. 1261/2016

Page  7  of  8  8

 

The Indian Jurist | www.theindianjurist.com

th thee pa part rtie ies, s, the the FI FIR R in qu ques esti tion on wa warr rran ants ts to be pu putt to an en end d an and d  proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed. 14.. 14

Ac Acco cord rdin ingl gly y, th this is peti petiti tion on is al allo lowe wed d an and d FIR FIR No No.26 .260/ 0/20 2003 03

dated 10.06.2003, under Sections 498-A/406 IPC registered at Police Station Pandav Nagar and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners. 15.

Th This is p peti etitio tion n is acco accord rding ingly ly dis dispos posed ed of of..

16.

App Applicatio lication n Crl Crl.M.A. .M.A. No.54 No.5431/2 31/2016 016 is also dispo disposed sed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE NOVEMBER 17, 2016/dd

Crl.M.C. 1261/2016

Page  8  of  8  8