Petitioners sought quashing of a matrimonial FIR upon settlement. The court examined principles for quashing under Section 482 CrPC, noting the dispute was amicably resolved and proceedings would be futile.
Quashing of FIR No. 340/2013 registered at police station Uttam Nagar, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: March 02, 2015
DEEPAK KAWATRA & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Mohinder Madan, Advocate for petitioner No.1 Mr. Deepak Kawatra, Advocate for petitioner No.2
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State with SI Govind Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate with respondent No.2 in person
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT % (ORAL)
Quashing of FIR No. 340/2013, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Uttam Nagar, Delhi is sought by petitioners on the basis of settlement of 5th March, 2014 reached between the parties.
Notice.
Mr. Navin Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State accepts notice and Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
Crl.M.C.No.829/2015
Page 1
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is complainant/firstinformant of the FIR in question and she has been identified to be so by her counsel as well as by SI Govind on the basis of identity proof produced by her.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State submits on instructions that the trial of this FIR case has not yet begun.
Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved vide aforesaid settlement and terms thereof have been fully acted upon as today, she has received the balance settled amount of `50,000/- by way of bankers cheque bearing No.’268096’, dated 20th February, 2015, drawn on State Bank of Indi, Moti Nagar, Delhi and that divorce by mutual consent has been already granted by the family court on 13th November, 2014. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit of 20th February, 2015 supporting this petition and submits that now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.
In „Gian Singh Vs 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:-
“Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or
Crl.M.C.No.829/2015
Page 2
would promote savagery.
Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.”
The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 . The pertinent 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 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 distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of 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
Crl.M.C.No.829/2015
Page 3
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 the Prevention 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 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.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak
Crl.M.C.No.829/2015
Page 4
and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.
29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the
Crl.M.C.No.829/2015
Page 5
settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.
29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in
Crl.M.C.No.829/2015
Page 6
acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.”
Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 340/2013, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Uttam Nagar , Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners.
This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE
MARCH 02, 2015 r
Crl.M.C.No.829/2015
Page 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal FIR may be quashed under Section 482 CrPC upon settlement of a matrimonial dispute where the offence is not compoundable.
Whether continuation of criminal proceedings in a settled matrimonial case constitutes an abuse of process of the court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh Vs State of PunjabExplained¶17
(2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh v. State of PunjabDistinguished¶23
(2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
DEEPAK KAWATRA & ORS.
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)
ANR.
SUNIL GAUR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
