Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 3767
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VINOD GOEL, J.
Anil Kumar Garg & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(CRL) 2159 of 2017
Decided On : 11-09-2017
For the Petitioners:Mr.Sushil Shukla, Adv. with Mr.Rachit Batra, Adv. with petitioners No.1 and 2 in person.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashish Negi, Adv. for Ms. Richa Kapoor, ASC for State with W/ASI Krishna, P.S. Vikas Puri., Mr. Himanshu Kapoor, Adv. along with in person.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of considering the nature and gravity of alleged offenses, the settlement between the parties, and the impact on society when deciding whether to quash criminal proceedings.
Headnote:
Quashing of FIR - Matrimonial Dispute - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash an FIR registered against them under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the complaint of the respondent, who was the petitioner's spouse. The parties had previously obtained a divorce decree from a court in the USA and had subsequently settled all their disputes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties had amicably resolved and settled all their disputes, and nothing was due or recoverable by them against each other. Therefore, it deemed it an abuse of the process of law to continue with the FIR and quashed the proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR should be quashed in light of the settlement between the parties and the nature of the offenses alleged.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows the High Court to make orders necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. It also considered the nature and gravity of the alleged offenses, the settlement between the parties, and the impact on society.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR and the proceedings arising from it, as the parties had amicably settled all their disputes and nothing was due or recoverable by them against each other.
VINOD GOEL, J.
1. Respondent No.2 appears in person. She is being represented by her counsel. She is duly identified by IO W/ASI Krishna.
2. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.PC’) for quashing of the FIR bearing No.0409/2016, registered on 20.05.2016 against them with Police Station Vikas Puri, West District, Delhi, under Sections 498/406/377/354/354(A)/506/509 IPC on the complaint of respondent No.2.
3. The marriage of the petitioner no.3 with the respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 05.12.2014 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. However, out of this wedlock no child was born.
4. After solemnization of their marriage, the petitioner no.3 and the respondent no.2 started residing together in the matrimonial home. Due to some temperamental differences between the petitioner no.3 and the respondent no.2, they could not reconcile with each other. Resultantly, the respondent no.2 left the matrimonial home on 27.12.2014 and started residing separately with her parents.
5. The petitioner no.3 and respondent no.2 were residing in USA. They agreed to enter into a settlement and seek divorce decree from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, County of Hudson. Accordingly, the petitioner no.3 and respondent no.2 executed a Mutual Settlement Agreement dated 27th April, 2015 and on the basis of the same, a mutual consent petition for divorce was filed by them before Superior Court of New Jersey. By order dated 7th July, 2015, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, County of Hudson, granted a decree of divorce by which the marriage between the petitioner no. 3 and the respondent no.2 was dissolved.
6. After grant of decree of divorce by the Superior Court of New Jersey, the respondent no. 2 lodged a complaint with CAW Cell which culminated into said FIR against the petitioners.
7. After the registration of the said FIR, the petitioners and respondent no.2 had resolved and settled all their disputes in terms of Memorandum of Understanding dated 22.05.2017. Copy of the same is placed on record.
8. The respondent No.2 states that she had voluntarily settled and resolved all disputes with the petitioners without any force and coercion. She submits that pursuant to the settlement she had received all the articles as mentioned in paras 9 and 10 of MOU dated 22.05.2017. She submits that she does not want to pursue the said FIR. She submits that the said FIR may be quashed.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submits that the State has objection to the quashing of the said FIR in view of serious offence under Section 377 IPC. Status report dated 07.09.2017 was filed. It is mentioned in the status report that during investigations parties had amicably settled the matter. Learned counsel for learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that charge-sheet has so far not been filed.
10. Here it is relevant to advert to Section 482 Cr.PC which reads as under:-
“482. Saving of inherent power of High Court.–Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
11. A bare reading of Section 482 Cr.PC shows that inherent powers of this Court are not limited or affected by the Cr.PC and there are to be exercised to (i) give effect to any order under Cr.PC (ii) prevent abuse of the process of any Court or (iii) to secure the ends of justice.
12. The Apex Court in the judgment of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2012 (10) SCC 303, while dealing with the scope of power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC observed as under: -
“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be s
