Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 2873
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SURESH KAIT, J.
MOHD ISMAIL AND ORS - Petitioners
Versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR - Respondents
CRL.M.C. No.5071/2015
Decided On : 14.12.2015
Advocate Appeared:
Mr.Abhishek Rai, Advocate with Petitioners in person.
Mr. Ravi Nayak,Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with Inspector Kamal Duggal and SI Prakash Chand, P.S. Kotwali.
The main legal point established is that the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be sparingly exercised in cases of matrimonial disputes, considering the nature of the offences and the possibility of conviction.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - 498A/406/34 IPC - [Sections 498A/406/34 IPC] - The court referred to the legal provisions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases, emphasizing the need for amicable resolution of disputes in matrimonial cases and the exercise of caution and sparing use of inherent power to quash criminal proceedings. The court highlighted the distinction between civil and heinous offences and the factors to be considered while deciding to quash criminal proceedings based on settlement between the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashing of FIR No.1015/2014 registered for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC. The respondent had settled the disputes with the petitioners and received the agreed amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the settlement agreement between the parties, dissolution of marriage, and payment of the agreed amount rendered the continuation of proceedings futile.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should quash the criminal proceedings based on the settlement agreement between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in cases of matrimonial disputes, the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with caution, considering the nature of the offences, the possibility of conviction, and the timing of the settlement.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners, while directing both parties to remain bound by the terms of the settlement agreement.
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.1015/2014 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against them.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2, namely, Smt.Nilofar. The case is at the initial stage of investigation as chargesheet has not yet been filed. Meanwhile, the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have settled their disputes vide settlement agreement dated 02.09.2015 arrived at before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, for a total sum of Rs.5,50,000/- (Five Lacs Fifty Thousand). As per the said settlement, first instalment of Rs.3,00,000/- (One Lacs) was paid to the respondent No.2 at the time of withdrawing DV case against the petitioners. The balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Two Lacs Fifty Thousand) is paid today in the Court by way of Demand Draft No.250851 dated 18.11.2015 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Bharat Nagar Branch, New Delhi, in favour of the respondent No.2, which facts have not been disputed by the respondent No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has been dissolved according to Muslim Rites and Customs vide Talaqnama dated 09.05.2014 and consequent to the said settlement, the respondent No.2 has received the agreed amount, therefore, she has no objection if the present petition is allowed.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that the matter is at the initial stage of investigation and since the respondent No.2 has come forward not to press the case against petitioners and present case being a matrimonial one, the State has no objection, if this Court allows the present petition.
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 & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 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 accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29.1 Power conferred und
