Allowed

Dharmender Kumar Parmar and Anr. v. State and Anr.

Delhi HC3 Jan 2024CRL.M.C./15/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498A/406 IPC registered against a husband following a complaint by his wife. The parties had amicably settled their disputes, obtained a divorce by mutual consent, and paid the settlement amount. The Court held that quashing served the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 192/2021 registered under Sections 498A/406 IPC and proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.

Dharmender Kumar Parmar and Anr. Vs State and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~32

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

+ CRL.M.C. 15/2024 & CRL.M.A. 58/2024

¶4

DHARMENDER KUMAR PARMAR

¶5

AND ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Harshit Jain, Adv. along with both the petitioners in person.

¶6

versus STATE AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP with SI Karishma Kanwat, PS Uttam Nagar. Ms. Gunjan Sinha Jain, Adv. for R-2 with R-2 in person.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R % 03.01.2024

¶8

The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( CrPC ) for quashing of the FIR No. 192/2021 dated 06.04.2021, under Sections 498A/406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ), registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar. The FIR was registered on a complaint filed by one Ms. Reena, who is arrayed as Respondent No. 2 in the present petition.

¶9

It is averred that the marriage between Mr. Dharmender Kumar Parmar, Petitioner No. 1 and Ms. Reena, Respondent No.2, was solemnized on 30.04.2012 as per Hindu rites and rituals. However, due to matrimonial discord, some misunderstanding took place between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2.

¶10

This is a digitally signed order.

¶11

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 06/05/2024 at 14:46:47

¶12

Owing to the misunderstandings and temperamental differences, both Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No.2 started living separately.

¶13

The Respondent No.2 made a complaint in Crime Against Women Cell against the petitioner and his family members, which later culminated into above-mentioned FIR No. 192/2021 dated 06.04.2021, under Sections 498A/406 of the IPC, registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar alleging that Respondent No. 2 was subjected to cruelty. The charge sheet in the present petition was filed on 14.01.2022 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC.

¶14

The present petition has been filed on the ground that the parties have with the intervention of family and friends amicably resolved their disputes of their own free will and volition, without any pressure, coercion, undue influence or duress of any nature. Pursuant to the settlement the parties have already obtained the decree of divorce and they intend to live their future lives peacefully.

¶15

The decree of divorce has already been obtained by mutual consent of the parties. In terms of the settlement dated 12.04.2023, an amount of ₹5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs) already stands paid to Respondent No. 2 and balance settlement amount of ₹1,00,000/- (One Lakh) is handed over in Court today by way of Demand Draft No. 145657 dated 14.11.2023 drawn on Union Bank of India, Noida. It is also noted that there is no child out of the wedlock.

¶16

The parties are present in person and have been duly identified by the IO.

¶17

Offence under section 498A of IPC is non-compoundable whereas offence under Section 406 of IPC is compoundable.

¶18

This is a digitally signed order. 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 06/05/2024 at 14:46:47

¶19

It is well settled that the High Court while exercising powers under Section 482, CrPC, can compound offences which are non-compoundable under CrPC 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 High Courts exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 for quashing of proceedings on the ground of settlement. In Narinder Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Supreme Court has observed as under:-

¶20

“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:

¶21

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.

¶22

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:

¶23

(i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

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.

¶28

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

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.”

¶30

(emphasis supplied)

¶31

Similarly, in Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors v. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported as (2017) 9 SCC 641 , the Supreme Court has observed as under :-

¶32

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

¶33

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.

¶34

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 noncompoundable.

¶35

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

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

¶43

This is a digitally signed order.

¶44

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 06/05/2024 at 14:46:47

¶45

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.”

¶46

(emphasis supplied)

¶47

Keeping in view the aforesaid principle, the nature of the dispute and the fact that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement, this Court feels that no useful 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 where discretionary jurisdiction can be exercised and the proceedings be quashed.

¶48

Thus, keeping in mind the nature of allegations, the settlement between the parties, pre-existing relationship between the parties and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court from time to time, FIR No. 192/2021 and the proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. Pending application(s) is also disposed of.

¶49

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶50

JANUARY 3, 2024 ‘KDK’

¶51

This is a digitally signed order.

¶52

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 06/05/2024 at 14:46:47

Dharmender Kumar Parmar and Anr. v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmender Kumar Parmar and Anr. v. State and 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

Harish Tiwari Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Rajeev Jain & Ors. Vs Ashtech Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Karan Arora Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) and Anr.

Rakesh Kaushik Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Collins Uka Okoro Vs Narcotics Control Bureau

Manish Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs State & Anr.