Allowed

Saroj Kumar & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC12 Jan 2024W.P.(CRL)/135/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR under Sections 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act via a W.P. (C.R.L.). The High Court allowed the petition, citing a complete settlement and divorce by mutual consent, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings as an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 467/2022 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

Saroj Kumar & Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~58

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 135/2024

¶4

SAROJ KUMAR & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Abhik Kumar and Mr. Rinku Mathur, Advs. Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 in person.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC for the State with Mr. Sangeet Sibou and Ms. Priya Rai, Advs. SI Kuldeep Bhati, PS Madhu Vihar. Mr. Anil Dutt Sharma, Adv. for R-2. Respondent No. 2 in person.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 12.01.2024

¶10

CRL.M.A. 1126/2024 (exemption from filing certified / illegible / typed copies of dim Annexure A to Annexure F)

¶11

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

The application stands disposed of.

¶13

W.P.(CRL) 135/2024

¶14

The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( CrPC ) seeking quashing of FIR No. 467/2022 dated 12.08.2022 registered at Police Station Madhu Vihar for offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ) and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry

¶15

This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 135/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/05/2024 at 12:30:10

¶16

Page 1 of 7

¶17

Prohibition Act, 1951, including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The said FIR was registered on a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2.

¶18

It is averred that the marriage between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 was solemnized on 11.10.2021 as per Hindu rites and rituals. No child was born out of the said wedlock. Thereafter, due to matrimonial discord, some misunderstandings took place between the parties, due to which Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 have been living separately since 16.10.2021.

¶19

Subsequently, Respondent No.2 made a complaint to the Crime Against Women Cell, Patparganj against the petitioners alleging that she was subjected to cruelty by the petitioners, which later culminated into the aforementioned FIR No. 467/2022.

¶20

The present petition is filed on the ground that the matter is amicably settled between the parties with the intervention of respectable members of society, on their own free will without any coercion, pressure or undue influence, and a Memorandum of Understanding dated 06.09.2023 is signed by Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 to that effect. Pursuant to the settlement, Respondent No.2 and Petitioner No.1 have already obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent, and they intend to live their future lives peacefully.

¶21

In terms of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 06.09.2023, an amount of ₹4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) already stands paid to Respondent No. 2, and the balance settlement amount of ₹2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) is paid to Respondent No.2 in Court today by way of cash.

¶22

The learned counsel for the parties submit that all the terms of the said settlement have been complied with.

¶23

This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 135/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/05/2024 at 12:30:10

¶24

Page 2 of 7

¶25

Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and Respondent No. 2 are present before this Court in person. The parties have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 states that she does not want to pursue any proceedings arising out of the FIR No. 467/2022.

¶26

Offences under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are non-compoundable whereas offence under Section 406 of the IPC is compoundable. 11. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC can compound offences which are non-compoundable under the Code on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for the High Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. : (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under :-

¶27

“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:

¶28

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 settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

¶29

This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 135/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/05/2024 at 12:30:10

¶30

Page 3 of 7

¶31

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:

¶32

(i) ends of justice, or

¶33

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

¶34

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak 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.”

¶38

(emphasis supplied)

¶39

12. Similarly , in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State

¶40

This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 135/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/05/2024 at 12:30:10

¶41

Page 4 of 7

¶42

of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under :-

¶43

“16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

¶44

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

¶45

16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

¶46

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

¶47

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

¶48

16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

¶49

This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 135/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/05/2024 at 12:30:10

¶50

Page 5 of 7

¶51

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

¶52

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

¶53

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

¶54

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

¶55

16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.”

¶56

(emphasis supplied)

¶57

This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 135/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/05/2024 at 12:30:10

¶58

Page 6 of 7

¶59

Keeping in view the aforesaid principle, nature of the dispute and that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement, this Court feels that no purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.

¶60

In view of the above, FIR No. 467/2022 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶61

The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶62

Pending application is also disposed of.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

JANUARY 12, 2024

‘KDK’

This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 135/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/05/2024 at 12:30:10

¶67

Page 7 of 7

Saroj Kumar & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Kumar & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonu Dahiya Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Saif Ali and Ors. Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) and Anr.

Rajesh Vs State & Anr.

Dimple & Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jaipal Khandelwal Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sanjeev Kumar Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sh. Sagar & Ors. Vs the State (N.C.T. of Delhi) & Anr.

Vivek Prasad & Ors. Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Sachin Kumar Daksh and Ors. Vs Mamta Gola and Anr.

Shyam Lal Vs State &Ors

Registrar of Companies Vs Scholar Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Esi Corporation Vs M/S. B.L. Kashyap & Sons & Anr.

Afzal Vs the State

Sarvesh Dutt Sharma Vs the State & Anr.