IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
R.K. GAUBA, J.
Rakesh Pal & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State (Govt. of Nct. of Delhi) & Anr. - Respondents
CRL.M.C. 1245 of 2018
Decided On : 15-01-2019
Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Matrimonial Dispute - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 498A, 406, 506, 34 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) - Section 173 - Section 482 - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The second respondent filed an FIR against her husband and in-laws under Sections 498A, 406, 506, 34 IPC. The parties reached a settlement for divorce and sought to quash the criminal case.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the settlement, confirmed the dissolution of marriage, and noted that the second respondent agreed to the settlement without coercion. The court considered the non-compoundable nature of the offense under Section 498A IPC and the scope of its power under Section 482 Cr. PC.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should exercise its power to quash criminal proceedings in a matrimonial dispute based on a settlement between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on precedents such as B.S. Joshi and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr., Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr., and Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Ors. Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and Anr. to emphasize the importance of encouraging genuine settlements in matrimonial disputes and the discretion of the court to quash proceedings in the interest of justice.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 406, 506, 34 IPC.
1. The second respondent was married to the first petitioner as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 01.12.2014. On 06.02.2016, she lodged first information report (FIR) no.120/2016 with police station Moti Nagar, alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against her husband (first petitioner), his father (second petitioner) and his mother (third petitioner). On conclusion of the investigation, police filed report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) on which cognizance was taken, the said matter being pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate. The parties were referred to Delhi Mediation Centre at Tis Hazari Courts where they agreed to amicably resolve the matter by entering into a settlement dated 02.06.2016 in terms of which the parties were to approach, as per the timelines indicated, the appropriate forum for obtaining a decree of divorce, they also having agreed inter alia for the criminal case arising out of the aforementioned FIR to be sought to be quashed.
2. The petition, thus, has been moved before this court invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR no.120/2016 under Sections 498A, 406, 506, 34 IPC of Police Station Moti Nagar.
3. The second respondent, on being served with the notice, has appeared with counsel. Pursuant to the directions in the last order, she has submitted her affidavit sworn on 22.11.2018. She is present in the court in person and has shown her original aadhar card, photocopy whereof is presented as Annexure-IV with the petition. From the submissions made and the documents presented including the affidavit of the second respondent on record, it is clear that no child took birth out of the marriage of the second respondent with the petitioner. Pursuant to the settlement, the parties had earlier approached the Family Court and on their joint petition their marriage has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce granted on 09.05.2017. The second respondent also confirms by her affidavit that in terms of the settlement agreement she has already received the entire balance amount, only the amount of Rs.1 Lakh being outstanding. The petitioners have handed over to her a demand draft bearing no.669349 dated 10.01.2019 for Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank, as per the settlement. It is clear from the submissions made by her in the affidavit that the settlement has been reached by the second respondent out of her own free will and volition, without any pressure or coercion.
4. Pertinent to note here that the offence under Section 498A IPC is not compoundable. The parties are constrained to move this court for quashing on the basis of amicable resolution arrived at by them in the facts and circumstances noted above.
5. The scope and ambit of the power conferred on this court by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in the particular context of prayer for quashing criminal proceedings, was examined by the Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr., (2003) 4 SCC 675, against the backdrop of a catena of earlier decisions. Noting, with reference to the decision in State of Karnakata Vs. L Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699, that in exercise of this “inherent” and “wholesome power”, the touchstone is as to whether “the ends of justice so require”, and it was observed thus :
“10. ... that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. ...that the compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realiza
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.