Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 2135
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
P.S. TEJI, J.
HARBIR LAKRA & ORS – Petitioners
Versus
STATE & ANR – Respondents
CRL. M.C. 708/2016
Decided On : 30-05-2016
Mr. A. Kampani, Adv.
Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for the State Respondent no.2 in person.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on the settlement between the parties, in line with the principles of amicable resolution of disputes and prevention of abuse of process of law.
Headnote:
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR - Settlement between parties - Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC - [Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466] - The court quashed the FIR under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC based on the settlement between the parties, citing the need for amicable resolution of disputes and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh cases.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash FIR No.127/2012 dated 29.06.2012, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC, based on a settlement reached with the respondent. The respondent had alleged harassment and demand for dowry by the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties had amicably settled their disputes and agreed to live together, leading to the quashing of the FIR under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC.
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC should be quashed based on the settlement between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh cases, emphasizing the need for amicable resolution of disputes 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.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No.127/2012 dated 29.06.2012, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC, based on the settlement between the parties.
P.S. TEJI, J.
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Harbir Lakra, Sh. Sukhbir Singh and Smt. Birmati for quashing of FIR No.127/2012 dated 29.06.2012, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Mundka on the basis of the Memorandum of Settlement arrived at between the petitioners and respondent no.2, namely, Smt. Ujjwal Dahiya on 21.01.2016 at Delhi.
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 in 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 respondent no.2 was solemnized on 10.12.2006. The complainant gave birth to a female child on 11.02.2010. Since the last two years, the husband of the complainant has been constantly harassing her physically and mentally. The husband of the complainant left his job in July 2010 and has been sitting at home idle since then. The husband of the complainant used to demand dowry of Rs. 50 lakhs from her. The complainant worked as a tutor and used to regularly give the petitioner no.1 money from her earnings. The father-in-law of the complainant was a regular drinker and often used to abuse the complainant. The mother-in-law of the complainant also used to abuse her and taunt her for not bringing sufficient dowry and for giving birth to a female child. The petitioner no.1 used to tell the complainant that all her complaints to the police are useless as his father was S.P. in CBI and his mama is serving in Delhi police. In May 2011, the petitioner no.1 slapped the complainant and gave her beatings with chappals after starting an argument regarding money for business. On 12.02.2012 again, the petitioner no.1 gave her beatings. Despite knowing about the pregnancy of the complainant, the petitioner no.1 dragged her from the stairs and locked her up in a room. Thereafter, the petitioner no.1, as alleged had filed false allegations against the complainant. The parents-in-law of the complainant went to USA and the complainant came to know that they were looking for a girl to marry their son-petitioner no.1.
Thereafter, both the parties managed to harmoniously settle all their differences with the help of family and friends.
4. Respondent No.2 present in the Court submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the Memorandum of Settlement, the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 have agreed to live together along with their daughter at any place of their choice including the matrimonial home, bearing No. 899, near metro station, khasra No. 250, vill. Mundka, Delhi 110041 and they have decided to fully co-operate with each other and their respective family members for making their marriage a success. It is also agreed that Sh. Sukhbir Singh/petitioner no.2 is the owner of house bearing No. 899, near metro station, khasra No. 250, vill. Mundka, Delhi 110041; built-up property situated in Khasra No. 450/1/2, vill. Mundka, Delhi measuring 500 sq. yds. in the possession of Sh. Sukhbir Singh and built-up property situated in Khasra No. 428/4, Vill. Mundka, Delhi measuring 550 sq. yds. in the possession of Sh. Sukhbir Singh. It is also agreed that Sh. Sukhbir Singh has four sons including the petitioner no.1 and Sh. Sukhbir Singh has agreed to transfer 1/4 share out of the said properties in the name of petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 who shall be joint owners. It is also agreed that Sh. Sukhbir Singh shall not create any third party interest regarding the 1/4 share of petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 during his lifetime. The petitioner no.1 agreed to withdraw his divorce petition and FIR No. 102/12, P.S. Mundka. The respondent no.2 has agreed to withdraw her DV case; FIR No. 108/12, PS Mundka and FIR No. 101/12, PS Mundka. The respondent no.2 also agreed to not prosecu
