Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 1242
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SURESH KAIT, J.
Vinod Kumar & Others – Petitioners
Versus
State (Government of NCT of Delhi) & Another – Respondents
Crl. M.C. No. 2689 of 2015
Decided On : 10.7.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State and Mr. Inderdeep Singh, Advocate.
The main legal principle established is the court's recognition of the need for amicable resolution of matrimonial disputes and the exercise of inherent power to quash criminal proceedings based on settlement agreements.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - 498A/406/34 IPC - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13B(2) - Code of Criminal Procedure - Settlement agreement between the offender and the victim - Amicable resolution of disputes - Quashing of criminal proceedings
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 104 of 2013 registered for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, as the matter had been amicably settled between the parties, leading to a mutual consent divorce under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Finding of the Court:
The court recognized the settlement between the parties and the amicable resolution of the matrimonial dispute, leading to the quashing of the criminal proceedings as it would be an exercise in futility to continue the proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the settlement agreement between the parties warranted the quashing of the criminal proceedings despite the non-compoundable nature of the offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the need for amicable resolution of disputes, particularly in matrimonial cases, and the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings based on settlement agreements.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom, considering the settlement and the diminished chances of success in the matter.
SURESH KAIT, J.
1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 104 of 2013 registered at P.S. Punjabi Bagh for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.
2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No. 2, Ms. Renu, consequent upon certain matrimonial and domestic disputes that have arisen between the parties pursuant to her marriage with the petitioner No. 1 Vinod Kumar. After investigation, police has filed the charge-sheet and case is pending for framing of charges. However, in the meantime, the parties have amicably settled their disputes in the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 29.08.2014 and accordingly, obtained a decree of divorce on 27.08.2014 by mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that charge-sheet has been filed and the case is pending for framing of charges. Since the matter pertains to domestic and matrimonial dispute, parties have amicably settled the matter, obtained divorce by mutual consent and are no longer interested in supporting the prosecution, therefore, looking to the overall circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings. Thus, the State has no objection if the present petition is allowed.
4. Respondent No. 2 is personally present in the Court with her counsel and has been identified by the IO of the case. She submits that she has already taken divorce from the petitioner No. 1 and has received the full and final agreed amount as per the settlement. She has no other complaints against any of the petitioners and does not want to pursue the case further. Therefore, she has prayed that the present petition may be allowed.
5. Under the circumstances and looking to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Apex Court has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant; by observing as under:
“58. 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 proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.”
6. While recognizing the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, the aforesaid dictum has been affirmed by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Another, 2014 6 SCC 466. The pertinent observations of the Apex Court are as under:-
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 accep
