Allowed

Pankaj Gupta & Ors. v. State Govt of NCT Delhi through Concerned SHO P.S. Welcome & Anr.

Delhi HC21 May 2024CRL.M.C./4061/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act following a compromise between the parties. The court held that continuing criminal proceedings was unnecessary as the disputes were amicably settled, including payment of settlement amount and custody of the child, securing the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 50/2016 and proceedings emanating therefrom.

Pankaj Gupta & Ors. Vs State Govt of NCT Delhi through… — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~93

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 4061/2024

¶4

PANKAJ GUPTA & ORS. ..... Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Y.P. Sharma, Advocate with Petitioners in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI THROUGH CONCERNED SHO P.S. WELCOME & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP with SI Anugraha, PS: Welcome, for State. Mr. Ved Parkash Verma and Mr. Praveen Aggarwal, Advocates for and along with Respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 21.05.2024

¶12

CRL.M.A. 15458/2024

¶13

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

Application stands disposed of.

¶15

CRL.M.C. 4061/2024

¶16

This petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 50/2016 dated 24.01.2016 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at PS: Welcome, including proceedings emanating therefrom. Charge sheet has been filed and charges have been framed against Petitioners No.1 to 3.

¶17

CRL.M.C. 4061/2024

¶18

Page 1 of 8

¶19

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 02/07/2025 at 09:55:57

¶20

Marriage between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 was solemnized on 25.06.2011 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Delhi. One child was born out of the said wedlock who is in the custody of Respondent No.2, and as per the arrangement between the parties, will continue to remain in custody of Respondent No.2. On account of disputes and differences arising between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2, they started living separately. Respondent No.2 made a complaint against the Petitioners which culminated into registration of the present FIR.

¶21

It is stated in the petition that Petitioner No.1 had filed a petition seeking divorce from Respondent No.2 on ground of cruelty, being HMA No.107/2016, which was decided in favour of Petitioner No.1 by Family Court, Gurugram, Haryana. Respondent No.2 challenged the decree before Punjab and Haryana High Court in FAO No. 6780/2018. She also filed a complaint under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 at Karkardooma Courts, Delhi as well as a maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The matter was referred by the Division Bench for mediation and on 24.04.2019, parties settled the disputes, wherein Respondent No.2 agreed to withdraw the appeal and accept the divorce decree as also to withdraw all other pending litigations. Both parties agreed that they will amicably part ways and the child would be in custody of the mother. Petitioner No.1 agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.5 lakhs to the complainant towards final settlement of all her claims, including the maintenance of the child. It was agreed that Respondent No.2 will not have any other claim on Petitioner No.1 regarding his movable or immovable properties. Rs.5,00,000/- was payable in four instalments in the form of demand drafts. Rs.3,00,000/- was to be paid in the name of Respondent No.2

CRL.M.C. 4061/2024

Page 2 of 8

and Rs.2,00,000/- in the name of the son. Certain other terms have also been carved out in the settlement agreement, copy of which has been placed on record.

¶26

Issue notice.

¶27

Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.

¶28

Mr. Ved Parkash Verma, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No.2.

¶29

Petitioners and Respondent No.2 are present in Court and are identified by the Investigating Officer SI Anugraha, PS: Welcome. Respondent No.2 acknowledges receipt of the total settlement amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs and states that she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR in view of settlement between the parties. Learned APP has no objection to the quashing of FIR, in view of the settlement between the parties.

¶30

The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, observed that while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in respect of quashing of an FIR where parties have entered into amicable resolution of the disputes, one of the considerations would be whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue the criminal proceedings despite the compromise and if the answer to the question is in the affirmative, the High Court would be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings, in order to ensure that the disputes are put to an end and peace is restored as securing the ends of justice is the ultimate guiding factor. This was of-course with a caveat that heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, dacoity etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or the victim’s family settles the disputes with the offender. Relevant paragraphs of

CRL.M.C. 4061/2024

Page 3 of 8

the judgment are as follows:-

¶35

“55. In the very nature of its constitution, it is the judicial obligation of the High Court to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice or to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process. This is founded on the legal maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, conceditur et id sine qua res ipsa esse non potest. The full import of which is whenever anything is authorised, and especially if, as a matter of duty, required to be done by law, it is found impossible to do that thing unless something else not authorised in express terms be also done, may also be done, then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. Ex debito justitiae is inbuilt in such exercise; the whole idea is to do real, complete and substantial justice for which it exists. The power possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code is of wide amplitude but requires exercise with great caution and circumspection.

¶36

xxx xxx xxx

¶37

58. 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. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal

CRL.M.C. 4061/2024

Page 4 of 8

proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.

¶42

xxx xxx xxx

¶43

61 . 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and the 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 a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the 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 predominatingly civil flavour stand on a 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, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above

CRL.M.C. 4061/2024

Page 5 of 8

question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

¶48

The Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed this view and in the context of matrimonial disputes, it would be relevant to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others v. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another, (2013) 4 SCC 58, relevant paragraphs of which are as follows:-

¶49

“15. In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.

¶50

16. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the Court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. We also make it clear that exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. It is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of the Code enables the High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enables this Court to pass such orders.”

¶51

Parties have mutually settled all their disputes. Marriage between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 stands dissolved. Settlement amount

CRL.M.C. 4061/2024

Page 6 of 8

has been paid to Respondent No.2. In view of the settlement between the parties and the categorical stand of Respondent No.2 that she does not want to pursue the complaint, no useful purpose will be achieved in continuing the criminal proceedings emanating from the present FIR as the chances of conviction are bleak and it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings are terminated. It is settled that where criminal proceedings arise essentially out of matrimonial dispute and parties decide to bury the hatchet, Court must examine the likelihood of criminal prosecution resulting in a conviction. Unless there is an indication of lack of bona fide on either side, if the parties are keen to move on with their respective lives and seek closure of the disputes, rejecting the prayer to quash the criminal case would restore acrimony instead of bringing about peace and harmony. This Court is fortified in its view by the decisions of this Court in Amit Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr., W.P. (Crl.) 2882/2022, decided on 02.12.2022 and Jogendra and Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi, CRL.M.C. 4204/2023, decided on 01.06.2023, where Courts have quashed FIRs under same provisions, predicated on settlements between the parties, in the interest of justice.

¶56

Accordingly, FIR No. 50/2016 dated 24.01.2016 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at PS: Welcome, is quashed including proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶57

It is made clear that in view of the binding dictum of the Supreme Court in Ganesh v. Sudhirkumar Shrivastava and Others , (2020) 20 SCC 787, t he terms of settlement between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 shall not come in the way of the child born out of the wedlock, from

CRL.M.C. 4061/2024

Page 7 of 8

enforcing his rights against Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2, if and when he chooses to so enforce.

¶62