The Delhi High Court allowed a writ petition and quashed an FIR registered under matrimonial offences after an amicable settlement was reached between the parties, citing Supreme Court guidelines on quashing criminal proceedings in private family disputes.
FIR No.143/2013 and consequential proceedings were quashed.
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.
$~67
SUSMAN MOHANTY ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Mohd. Farhan Khan and Ms.Mohna M.Lal, Advocates with petitioner No.1 in person.
versus
STATE OF NCT DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State/R-1 with SI Ved Prakash, PS CWC Nanak Pura. Respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
O R D E R % 13.01.2016
Crl.M.A. No.623/2016 (early hearing)
Page 1 of 5
W.P.(C) No.96/2016
in-law) and Mangesh Samant (brother-in-law), the present petition seeking quashing of FIR in question has been filed by the husband only i.e. petitioner Susman Mohanty. Thereafter, the petitioner Susman Mohanty sought time to implead other accused persons named in the FIR as a party in this petition. Today amended memo of parties impleading other three accused persons named in the FIR as a party has been filed, which has been taken on record.
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. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have 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
W.P.(CRL) 96/2016
Page 4 of 5
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.”
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
JANUARY 13, 2016 ‘st’
W.P.(CRL) 96/2016
Page 5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to quash an FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, and 34 IPC in matrimonial disputes settled amicably.
Whether continued criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law after full and final settlement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v State of Punjab & Anr.Explained¶29
Gian Singh v State of Punjab & Anr. 2012 (9) SCALE 257
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Susman Mohanty
State of NCT Delhi
Respondent No.2
Pratibha Rani
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
