Delhi High CourtMukesh & Ors vs State ( Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 7 April, 2016Author:P.S.TejiBench:P.S.Teji*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 4616/2015 & Crl.M.A. No. 16551/2015

                                     Date of Decision : April 07th, 2016

    MUKESH & ORS                                        ..... Petitioner
                         Through:    Mr. Javed Ashraf Khan, Advocate
                         versus
    STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)               ..... Respondent
                  Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public
                            Prosecutor for the State with Inspector
                            Ajay Sharma, Police Station
                            Mahendra Park, Delhi
        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

    P.S.TEJI, J.1.      The present petition underSection 482Cr.P.C. has been filed by
    the petitioners, namely, Mukesh, Smt. Om Wati and Mange Ram for
    quashing of FIR No.153/2010 dated 22.06.2010, underSections
    498A/406/34IPC registered at Police Station Mahindra Park on the
    basis of the settlement arrived at between petitioner no.1 and
    respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Sonu.2.      Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
    submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been
    identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question
    by Inspector Ajay Sharma.3.      The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage
    between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 was solemnizedCrl.M.C. 4616/2015                                          Page 1 of 8on 08.05.2009 as per Hindu rites and customs. The petitioner no.1 was
a drunker and smack consumer. When he comes home in the evening,
he used to tease, beat up and harass the complainant. The petitioner
no.1 used to ask the complainant to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her
parents otherwise, he will not let her stay in the matrimonial home.
The mother-in-law of the complainant also used to tease and harass
the complainant for bringing less dowry. The father-in-law of the
complainant also used to cause harassment to her by asking for dowry.The respondent no.2/complainant filed a complaint before the
CAW Cell against the petitioners which resulted into the registration
of the FIR in question. Later on, the parties arrived at an amicable
settlement.4.      Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the
dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the
settlement, the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 settled their
respective claims against each other amicably w.r.t. stridhan,
maintenance, permanent alimony for a total sum of Rs. 50,000/-
through counseling. The said amount has been paid by the petitioner
no.1 on two occasions i.e. on recording of the statement of first and
second motion for divorce by mutual consent. The respondent no.2
also agreed to withdraw her petition underSection 125Cr.P.C. and
also the petition underSection 18 (1)and18 (2)H.A.M.A. There are
no litigations pending between the parties and the parties agreed to not
file any case etc. against each other in future after the settlement.
Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement. All
the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutualCrl.M.C. 4616/2015                                         Page 2 of 8consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives 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
stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.5.InGian 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 other words, the High Court must consider
                whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest
                of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings
                or continuation of criminal proceedings would
                tantamount to abuse of process of law despite
                settlement and compromise between the victim 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.      The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a
recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court inNarinder 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 power underSection 482of the Code
                while accepting the settlement and quashing the
                proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with
                direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:Crl.M.C. 4616/2015                                                      Page 3 of 829.1 Power conferred underSection 482of the Code
                is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the
                Court to compound the offences underSection 320of
                the Code. No doubt, underSection 482of the Code,
                the High Court has inherent power to quash the
                criminal proceedings even in those cases which are
                not compoundable, where the parties have settled the
                matter between themselves. However, this power is to
                be exercised sparingly and with caution.
                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:(i) ends of justice, or(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.While exercising the power the High Court is to form
                an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
                29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those
                prosecutions which involve heinous and serious
                offences of mental depravity or offences like murder,
                rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in
                nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly,
                for the offences alleged to have been committed under
                special statute like thePrevention of Corruption Actor 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 the other hand, those criminal cases having
                overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character,
                particularly those arising out of commercial
                transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship
                or family disputes should be quashed when the parties
                have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.7.      The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised 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 questionCrl.M.C. 4616/2015                                                   Page 4 of 8without 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
extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal proceedings
between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the considered
opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction underSection
482Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the
ends of justice.8.      The incorporation of inherent power underSection 482Cr.P.C.
is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provision
of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process 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 ofCr.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 settled law that the inherent power of the High Court underSection 482Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of State of Maharashtra throughCBI v. Vikram
Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014and in the case of
Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009
has observed that powers underSection 482Cr.P.C. must be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Court
comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there
would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is notCrl.M.C. 4616/2015                                          Page 5 of 8exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.10.     It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced
that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not
affect public peace or tranquillity 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 cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and
energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in
entering into compromise.      In certain cases, the main offence is
compoundable but the connected offences are not.In the case ofB.S.
Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another2003 (4) SCC 675
the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions ofSection 320Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not
compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers underSection 482Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of
securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary,section 320Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of
quashing.      In the nutshell, the Hon'ble Apex Court justified the
exercise of powers underSection 482Cr.P.C. to quash the
proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts
and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non-
compoundable.In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that
notwithstanding the fact the offence underSection 498AIPC is a non-
compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing theCrl.M.C. 4616/2015                                        Page 6 of 8FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts
and circumstances of the case so warrant.11.     The Courts in India are now normally taking the view that
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.
between such couples, due to which majority is coming to the Court to
get redressal. In its 59th report, the Law Commission of India had
emphasized that while dealing with disputes concerning the family, the
Court ought to adopt an approach radically different from that
adopted in ordinary civil proceedings and that it should make
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 because of which it becomes difficult for speedy disposal of
matrimonial disputes alone. As the matrimonial disputes are mainly
between the husband and the wife and personal matters are involved
in such disputes, so, it requires conciliatory procedure to bring a
settlement between them. Nowadays, mediation has played a very
important role in settling the disputes, especially, matrimonial
disputes and has yielded good results. The Court must exercise its
inherent power underSection 482Cr.P.C. to put an end to theCrl.M.C. 4616/2015                                          Page 7 of 8matrimonial litigations at the earliest so that the parties can live
peacefully.12.     Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial,
which now stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties,
therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in
question would be an exercise in futility and is a fit case for this Court
to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.13.     In the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of statement
made by the respondent No.2 and the compromise arrived at between
the parties, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and
proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.14.     Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.153/2010
dated 22.06.2010, underSections 498A/406/34IPC registered at
Police Station Mahindra Park and the proceedings emanating
therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.15.     This petition is accordingly disposed of.16.     The application Crl.M.A. No. 16551/2015 is also disposed of.(P.S.TEJI)
                                                             JUDGE
APRIL 07, 2016
ddCrl.M.C. 4616/2015                                          Page 8 of 8