Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 2562
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VINOD GOEL, J.
RAHUL SHOKEEN - Petitioner
Versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR - Respondent
W.P.(CRL) 3029/2016
Decided On : 01-08-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Karamveer Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Avi Singh, ASC for the State with Ms. Megha Bahl, Advocate along with SI Raj Kumar, PS Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi. Mr. Gaurav Chauhan, Advocate.
The High Court can quash criminal proceedings when the parties have amicably settled their disputes, and the offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility.
Headnote:
Article 226/227 - Quashing of FIR - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 307 IPC - Section 125 of Cr.PC - Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash FIR No. 548/2014, registered for causing injuries to the respondent. The parties had settled their disputes amicably and the respondent no. 2 was living with the petitioner happily.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the settlement between the parties, the well-being of the minor children, and the happiness of the respondent no. 2 with the petitioner. It referred to the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings when the parties have amicably settled their disputes.
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR should be quashed considering the settlement between the parties and the well-being of the minor children.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in cases where the offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility, and where quashing the proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure ends of justice, the High Court should not hesitate to quash them.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR and the proceedings arising out of the same, considering the settlement between the parties and the well-being of the minor children.
1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.PC) for quashing of FIR No. 548/2014, registered on 01.07.2014 with Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi, under Section 307 IPC.
2. The marriage of the petitioner with respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 09.02.2000 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies in Delhi. Out of the said wedlock, two children namely Dev Shokeen and Aashima were born on 18.03.2001 on 22.03.2007 respectively.
3. After the marriage, there used to be quarrel between the petitioner and the respondent No.2. On 30.06.2014, there was an altercation between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 and the petitioner caused multiple stab injuries on the face, neck, right wrist and right hand of respondent No.2 with a knife. Respondent No.2 was taken to Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi-110029. The Medical Officer described nature of injuries as “simple” and kind of weapon used as “sharp”.
4. Status report has been filed.
5. Learned ASC through the IO submits that the charge sheet has so far not been filed.
6. Respondent No.2 had filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.PC for maintenance against the petitioner before Principal Judge, Family Court, Saket, New Delhi. She had also filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short ‘DV Act’) before the court of learned MM, Mahila Court, Saket, New Delhi.
7. The parties have arrived at a settlement before the learned Mediator, Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi, on 03.06.2015 on making a reference by learned MM, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, where petition under Section 12 of D.V. Act was pending. The following terms and conditions of settlement were recorded by the learned Mediator: -
“1. It is stated by the husband Sh. Rahul Shokeen and wife Smt.Pooja Shokeen that they have resolved amicably, all their disputes and differences and, are ready to live together peacefully in their matrimonial house along with her two children named above at H. No.25, 3rd Floor, Amrit Nagar, South Extension Part-1, New Delhi from 21.05.2015.
2. They both agree to discharge their responsibilities towards each other and other family members also.
3. Respondent No.1 Rahul Shokeen agree to maintain good relationship and take care of the children and complainant/wife in all means.
4. All the respondents are agree not to ask the complainant Pooja Shokeen to leave the above mentioned house in future.
5. Respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 also agree to give 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) per month to the complainant Pooja Shokeen and that amount shall be deposited in the bank account of the complainant Pooja Shokeen on or before 2nd day of each English calendar month for a period of one year, if the complainant and respondent NO.1 maintain good relations, then in that case, the said amount will be continued to be paid to Pooja Shokeen.
6. Respondent no.2 and respondent No.3 also agreed that they shall given respective share of all properties owned by them along with ancestral properties to their grandchildren in case respondent No.1 fails to discharge his responsibilities towards his children and wife/complainant.
7. Complainant wants to wait and watch their relationship and seeks one year time to withdraw the present matter.
8. It is also undertaken by both the parties that they both will give respect to the family members, relatives of each other.
9. It is agreed between both the parties that in-laws are free to visit the property at Amrit Nagar, South Extension Part-1 to meet their grandchildren whenever they feel like and also the complainant agrees that she will not object to such visitation. However, it is agreed by the respondents No.2 that he will not stay in the above-mentioned property for more than three days in any given month. Further, the respondent No.3 sh
