Allowed

Sh Satish Kumar and Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.

Delhi HC13 Mar 2024CRL.M.C./320/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes the FIR under Section 498A IPC. The Delhi High Court held that since the parties settled the matrimonial dispute and complied with the settlement terms, continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process and contrary to the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 994/2017 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

Sh Satish Kumar and Ors. Vs State (Govt. of NCT of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~19

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

+ CRL.M.C. 320/2024

¶4

SH SATISH KUMAR AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Adv. M. Mittal with all the four petitioners.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR

¶7

..... Respondents

¶8

Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State. SI Saurabh Malik PS Vijay Vihar. Adv. Samridhi for R-2 with R-2 in person.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶10

O R D E R % 13.03.2024

¶11

The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( CrPC ) for quashing of the FIR No.994/2017 dated 01.08.2017 under Sections 498A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ), registered at Police Station Vijay Vihar. The FIR was registered on a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2. The chargesheet has already been filed.

¶12

It is averred that the marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No.2 was solemnized on 06.03.2011 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. One female child was also borne from the said wedlock, who is in the custody of Respondent No.2. Thereafter, due to matrimonial discord, some misunderstandings

¶13

Page 1 of 7

¶14

CRL.M.C. 320/2024

¶15

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 23/04/2024 at 11:41:32

¶16

took place between the parties, due to which Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No. 2 have been living separately since 02.05.2017.

¶17

Subsequently, Respondent No.2 made a complaint before Crime Against Women Cell against Petitioner No.1 and his family members, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty by them, which later culminated into the aforementioned FIR.

¶18

The present petition is filed on the ground that with the intervention of respected persons of society, well-wishers, friends, family members, the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes and grievances and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 17.02.2023 of their own free will and without any force, pressure, or coercion. Pursuant to the settlement, the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 have already obtained the decree of divorce and they intend to live their future lives peacefully.

¶19

In terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 17.02.2023, out of the total settlement amount of ₹5,15,000/-, an amount of ₹3,25,000/- already stands paid to Respondent No. 2 and balance settlement amount of ₹1,90,000/- is handed over in Court today to the Respondent No. 2 by way of Demand Draft No. 830874 dated 12.03.2024 drawn on State Bank of India.

¶20

All the original documents of the Respondent No.2 have been handed over to the her in Court today.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

Respondent No.2, on being asked, states that she does not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the present FIR, and has no objection if the proceedings are quashed.

¶24

CRL.M.C. 320/2024 Page 2 of 7

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 23/04/2024 at 11:41:32

¶27

Offence under section 498A of the IPC is noncompoundable and offence under Section 406 of the IPC is compoundable.

¶28

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 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 :-

¶29

“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:

¶30

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.

¶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: (i) ends of justice, or

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

Page 3 of 7

¶35

CRL.M.C. 320/2024

¶36

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

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.”

¶40

(emphasis supplied)

¶41

Similarly , in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. : (2017) 9 SCC 641 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under :-

¶42

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

¶43

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.

¶44

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

¶45

CRL.M.C. 320/2024 Page 4 of 7

¶46

¶47

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.

¶48

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.

¶49

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.

¶50

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.

¶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

¶54

CRL.M.C. 320/2024

¶55

Page 5 of 7

¶56

¶57

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.

¶58

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

¶59

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.”

¶60

(emphasis supplied)

¶61

Keeping in view the nature of 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 opinion that this is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.

¶62

In view of the above, FIR No. 994/2017 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

¶63

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the legality of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 17.02.2023, entered between the parties, and the legal rights of the minor child will not be affected in any manner whatsoever by the

¶64

CRL.M.C. 320/2024

¶65

Page 6 of 7

¶66

¶67

present order or by the settlement arrived entered into between the parties.

¶68