Back
2007 Supreme(Del) 695
142 (2007) DELHI LAW TIMES 141
DELHI HIGH COURT
A.K. Sikri, J.
JAIBIR & ORS. -Petitioners
Versus
STATE & ANR. -Respondents
Crl. M.C. Nos. 7796-7799 of 2006 & Crl. M. Nos. 13289-90 of 2006
Decided on 30.3.2007
For the Petitioners:Mr. Rishikesh Chaudhary, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. U.L. Watwani, Addl. Public Prosecutor with Mr. Pradeep Kumar and Mr. Narender Kumar, Advocates.
The court emphasized the importance of promoting the settlement of disputes through the process of mediation and exercised its inherent powers to quash the proceedings in the public interest.
Headnote:
Quashing of Proceedings - Matrimonial Disputes - Sections 307/34, IPC
Fact of the Case:
The complainant and his family members were accused in FIR No. 120/2003 under Sections 307/34, IPC. The parties settled their disputes, and a joint petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent was filed. The complainant received a sum of Rs. 50,000 and agreed to receive the balance amount at the time of quashing of the proceedings against each other and their family members.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the settlement was arrived at during mediation proceedings and emphasized the importance of promoting the settlement of disputes through the process of mediation. It held that the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 120/2003, which are under Sections 307/34, IPC, need to be quashed and are hereby quashed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the proceedings under Sections 307/34, IPC, could be quashed despite being non-compoundable due to the settlement reached between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings, emphasizing the importance of promoting the settlement of disputes through the process of mediation and considering the public interest in attaching importance to such a settlement.
Final Decision: The court quashed the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 120/2003, which are under Sections 307/34, IPC, and disposed of the accompanying applications.
A.K. Sikri, I.-Respondent No.2 Mahesh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who lodged FIR No. 120/2003, married one Sarita on 16.4.2001. Sarita is the daughter of the petitioner No.2 herein. This marriage, however, could not succeed and went to rooks. On 20.3.2003, Sarita lodged a complaint on the basis of which FIR No. 228/2003 was registered against the complainant and his family members under Sections 498-A, 406/34, IPC. After investigation, challan has been filed in the said FIR and the matter is now pending before Ms. Barkha Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini Courts, Delhi.
2. However, few days before the lodging of FIR No. 228/2003 by Sarita, the complainant lodged FIR No. 120/2003 under Sections 307/34, IPC against Shri Kalu Ram (father of Sarita) and other relatives alleging that there was an attempt on his life by the accused persons. Challan has been filed in this case also and the matter is pending before Sh. Yogesh Khanna, Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi. In view of the nature of disputes, which are matrimonial disputes, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The parties appeared before Shri Vinod Goel, ADJ-cum-Mediator. During the pendency of both the FIRs, the complainant, along with his family members, on the one hand and Sarita, along with her family members, on the other, settled/ compromised their disputes and settlement was recorded on 27.2.2006. Pursuant thereto, a joint petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent between the complainant and Sarita was filed and on 16.7.2006 decree of divorce was granted. Sarita, as a result of the said compromise, was paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and it was also agreed that balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- would be received at the time of quashing of the proceedings against each other and their family members. Pay order in this respect is deposited with the Delhi Legal Services Authority, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
3. In view of the aforesaid settlement, the petitioners, who are the accused persons in FIR No. 120/2003 under Sections 307/34, IPC have filed this petition for quashing of the proceedings in the said FIR.
4. The petitioners have enclosed with this petition report of the Mediator recording the terms and conditions of the settlement as per which it was specifically agreed that the petitioners shall file petition for quashing of the FIR and the complainant shall fully cooperate in the said petition. Not only this, even in respect of FIR No. 228/2003 lodged by Sarita, there was an agreement that the same would be quashed. The terms contained in the said settlement are as under:
“(1) That the first party shall give Rs. one Lac to second party towards dowry articles and maintenance etc. and after this payment no claim shall be remained towards each party.
(2) That both the parties shall obtain divorce by filing a joint petition and a payment of Rs. one lac will be paid therein.
(3) That on the complaint of the second party a FIR No. 228/03 under Sections 498A/406/34, IPC was registered in P.s. Nangloi, in which a charge-sheet has been filed against the first party and his family members which is pending in the Court of Ms. Barkha Gupta M.M., Rohini, Delhi and first party will file a writ petition in Delhi High Court to quash this case and second party will cooperate to quash the same.
(4) That on complaint of first party a FIR No. 120/03 was registered under Sections 307/34, IPC in P.S. Sultanpuri, in which a Challan has been filed against father of second party namely Kalu Ram and her maternal uncles namely Joginder and Davinder and their relative Jaiveer. Same is pending in the Court of Sh. Yogesh Khanna, ASJ, Rohini, Delhi and fixed for 9.3.2006.
That to quash this case, father of second party namely Kalu Ram and other person shall file a writ petition in Delhi High Court and second party will fully cooperate to quash the same.
(5) That the second party shall withdraw the petition under
