Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 1663
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
P.S.TEJI, J.
SANJAY SHARMA & ORS - Petitioners
Versus
STATE AND ANR - Respondents
CRL.M.C. 11/2016 & Crl.M.A. No. 44/2016
Decided On : 5-4-2016
Mr.B.S. Tiwari, Adv.
Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for the State with Mr.Surender Sharma, PS Shalimar Bagh. Mr.Aditya Sharma, Adv. with Respondent No.2 in person.
The main legal principle established is the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes, emphasizing the need for amicable resolution and promotion of conciliation.
Headnote:
498A IPC - Matrimonial Dispute - Section 498A, Section 406, Section 34 IPC - The court discussed the settlement between the parties, the principles of quashing criminal proceedings, and the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of law and secure the ends of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a matrimonial dispute where the respondent lodged an FIR against the petitioners under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC. The parties reached a settlement for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent and full and final settlement amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties had amicably resolved their disputes and reached a settlement, leading to the quashing of the FIR and related proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings in light of the settlement between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab to determine the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court emphasized the need for amicable resolution of matrimonial disputes and the promotion of conciliation to secure speedy settlement.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR No. 790/2004 dated 15.09.2004, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Shalimar Bagh and the proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners.
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Sh. Jagdish Kishore Sharma and Smt. Sushila Sharma for quashing of FIR No. 790/2004 dated 15.09.2004, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Shalimar Bagh on the basis of the Joint Statement of petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 namely, Ms. Raman Sharma before Ld. Addl. Principal Judge, Rohini, Delhi recorded on 01.08.2013 in view of the settlement arrived at between them.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by her counsel.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 was solemnized on 20.11.1989. After marriage, Santosh Tiwari constantly harassed the complainant by making remarks on the lack of dowry. One evening, when the husband of the complainant came home, Ms. Santosh Tiwari told him that the complainant has been misbehaving with her and thus the husband of the complainant gave beatings to the complainant. The period since the complainant’s first arrival at Jaipur from 1993 to 9899 were the most traumatic years of the life of the complainant with constant mental and physical abuse. The complainant’s health started to deteriorate due to constant beating from the husband and father-in-law of the complainant. Later, the complainant came to know that her husband was having relations with other girls too. The husband of the complainant stayed in Delhi for a year after the complainant and he separated in the year 1999 and continued to mentally torture the complainant over the phone. In the month of May 2002, the in-laws of the complainant came to her to take the kids along and the complainant was threatened by them for refusing. All the jewellery and other istridhan of the complainant were still lying with her husband and her in-laws and it was not returned to her.
The respondent no.2/complainant lodged the FIR in question against the petitioners. The charge sheet was filed in the matter against the petitioners. The respondent no.2 filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. During the proceedings, the matter was amicable settled and the maintenance application was dismissed as withdrawn.
4. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the joint statement, it has been agreed that the parties applied for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent and the first motion was accepted on 14.08.2012 by the concerned Family Court, Rohini. It is also agreed that the parties have settled all their disputes for the full and final settlement amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs and on payment of Rs.25 Lakhs, respondent no.2 shall be left with no claim against stridhan, dowry articles, permanent alimony, maintenance-past, present and future. It is also agreed that the petitioner no.1 has already paid an amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs at the time of first motion. It is also agreed that the petitioner no.1 has already paid Rs. 3.75 Lakhs for master Ananya Sharma by way of DD of Rs. 2 Lakhs and 1.75 in cash on 27.05.2013. It is also agreed that the petitioner no.1 is giving Rs. 3.75 Lakhs to the respondent no.2 in favour of both children by way of two DDs bearing nos. 209705 & 209706 both dated 30.07.2013 drawn on ICICI Bank of the sum of Rs. 1.25 Lakhs each and Rs. 1.25 Lakhs in cash today in the Court. It is also agreed that the petitioner no.1 shall pay the balance amount of Rs. 7.50 Lakhs to respondent no.2 at the time of quashing of FIR in question. It is also agreed that the parties shall not have any right, title or interest of any nature whatsoever against each other in the properties in their possession or acquired/obtained in future. It is also agreed that the parties shall withdraw all pending litigations, i
