Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 3406
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SURESH KAIT, J.
Nanak Chand - Petitioner
Versus
State NCT of Delhi And Anr. - Respondents
CRL.M.C. No.4813/2015
Decided On : 30-11-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr.Bomamah Shukla, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State with SI Rani Jassal, South Rohini in person, Mr. Ms Maini, Adv for R-2
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of encouraging genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and the sparing use of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing proceedings based on such settlements.
Headnote:
498A/436/5064 IPC - Matrimonial Dispute - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Section 498A/436/5064 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.699/2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/436/5064 IPC and the consequential proceedings. The petitioner and respondent No.2 entered into a settlement, and respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the case further against the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the matter was essentially matrimonial and mutually settled between the parties, and the complainant was no longer interested in supporting the prosecution. The court concluded that the continuance of proceedings would be an exercise in futility.
Issues: The issues involved the quashing of the FIR and proceedings arising from it, based on the settlement between the parties and the complainant's lack of interest in pursuing the case further.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles established in various Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing the need for amicable resolution of disputes in matrimonial cases and the exercise of caution and sparing use of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Final Decision: The court quashed FIR No. 699/2014 and all proceedings emanating therefrom, allowing the petition with no order as to costs.
SURESH KAIT, J.
CRL.M.C. No.4813/2015
1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.699/2014 registered at Police Station South Rohini, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/436/5064 IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against him.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2. Thereafter, petitioner and respondent no.2 entered into the settlement vide compromise deed dated 02.11.2015 whereby it is agreed that the petitioner shall give half of his salary to respondent no. 2 to enable her to maintain herself and the child namely Piyush Maurya. Further, it is agreed that the petitioner shall effect mutation and transfer of the share in property bearing no. E-16/496, Bapa Nagar, Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi in the name of his above noted son who is presently aged about 16 years. It is also agreed that the petitioner shall cooperate with the respondent no. 2 in getting the share for Piyush Maurya in property mentioned above and also in other property situated at Papra, Rajasthan as per suit to be filed by Piyush Maurya. Besides other properties including moveable and immovable properties and the said properties shall be mutated and transferred in the name of Piyush Maurya while the jewellery etc. shall be transferred in the name of respondent no.2.
3. It is also agreed that the petitioner shall not visit the house of the respondent no.2 at any place wherever she is residing and shall not make any phone call to her and shall not harass her in any manner. If the offence is committed the action may be taken against him.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that consequent to the said settlement, the respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue her case further against the petitioner.
5. Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court alongwith her counsel named above and she has been duly identified by the Investigating Officer of the case. The learned counsel under instructions does not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the settlement has already been arrived at between both the parties and as per the settlement dated 02.11.2015 both parties shall be remained bound by the same. Keeping in view of the settlement arrived at between both the parties, respondent no. 2 is no more interested to pursue the case further against the petitioner. Respondent No.2 states that now no dispute with petitioner survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question may be brought to an end.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that the charges have already been framed against the petitioner and the case is pending for the prosecution evidence. He further submits that the present matter is a matrimonial one and since the respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the case further against petitioners, no purpose would be served if the petitioner is directed to face trial. Therefore, the State has no objection, if the present petition is allowed.
7. 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 offe
