Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 2563
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
R.K. Gauba, J.
JATINDER SINGH ANAND AND OTHERS - Appellant
Vs.
STATE AND ANOTHER - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 400 of 2019, 401 of 2019
Decided On : 05-08-2019
Satyam Thareja, Advocate, Meenakshi Chauhan, Advocate, Aditya Singla, Advocate, Pallav Gupta, Advocate
The exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings based on an amicable settlement should aim to do real, complete, and substantial justice, particularly in cases involving compoundable offences.
Headnote:
Criminal Proceedings - Quashing - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 506/509/34, 498A/406/34 - Settlement agreement between parties - Exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. - Ends of justice - Quashing of criminal proceedings
Fact of the Case:
The second respondent raised allegations of cruelty and deprivation of valuable articles against the first petitioner. Two FIRs were registered under Sections 506/509/34 and 498A/406/34 IPC. The parties entered into an amicable settlement, and the marriage was dissolved by the Family Court. The first petitioner was to pay Rs. Ten lakhs to the second respondent as per the settlement agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the settlement agreement between the parties and the dissolution of marriage indicated a genuine resolution on equitable terms, justifying the quashing of criminal proceedings. The court emphasized the duty to give adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties, particularly in cases involving compoundable offences.
Issues: The issues involved the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings based on an amicable settlement, and the scope and ambit of the power conferred on the court in such cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law, and the prime principle governing the exercise of inherent power is to do real, complete, and substantial justice. The court also emphasized the duty to encourage parties to terminate discord amicably, especially in matrimonial disputes.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners based on the settlement agreement between the parties.
JUDGMENT
R.K.Gauba, J.
The second respondent in these petitions was married to the first petitioner, common to both the matters, as per Sikh Rites and Ceremonies on 08.09.2013. The marriage ran into rough weather, the second respondent raised allegations of she having been subjected to cruelty and deprived of her valuable articles on her complaint, first information report (FIR) no. 276/2015 (first case) having been registered by police station South Campus on 20.05.2015 involving offences punishable under Sections 506/509/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Subsequently, on her complaint another FIR no. 94/2015 (second case) was registered on 02.09.2015 with police station CWC, Nanak Pura, the case involving offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC. The first case is directed against the husband, his brother-in-law, his uncle and his father (first to fourth petitioners respectively in Crl.M.C. 400/2019) while the second FIR was directed against the husband, his father, his mother, brother-in-law and his sisters (first to sixth petitioners in Crl.M.C. 401/2019).
2. The parties, however, were persuaded to enter into an amicable settlement through the process of mediation and executed a formal settlement deed on 24.05.2018 in Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The present petitions have been filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) to bring an end to the aforementioned two criminal cases on such basis.
3. The second respondent on being served with notice has entered appearance through counsel. On being directed, she has submitted her affidavits sworn on 12.07.2019 which have been placed on file of each of the petitions, copies of her voter identity card having been submitted therewith as proof of identity. The second respondent through the said affidavits, and also in person at the hearing, has confirmed that she has settled the matter amicably on the terms set out in the settlement agreement dated 24.05.2018, a copy whereof has been filed in each of these matters.
4. In terms of the above-mentioned settlement agreement, the marriage of the first petitioner and the second respondent has been dissolved by the Family Court for West District by judgment and decree dated 17.01.2019 passed in HMA No. 34/2019, a copy whereof has been submitted and kept on record.
5. As per the settlement agreement, the second respondent is to receive from the first petitioner, who is obliged to pay to her a total amount of Rs. Ten lakhs as full and final settlement of all her claims, on all counts including stridhan and permanent alimony. It was submitted on the last date of hearing that pursuant to order dated 07.05.2016 of the court of Sessions on an anticipatory bail application, in the context of second above-mentioned case i.e. FIR no. 94/2015, a fixed deposit receipt (FDR) in the sum of Rs. ten lakhs had been deposited by the first petitioner. It is the agreement between the parties that the said FIR would be released to the second respondent for satisfaction of her claim under the above-mentioned agreement.
6. Some confusion had prevailed on the last date as to the compliance with the above-mentioned condition in the anticipatory bail order, neither the investigating agency nor the parties being clear as to where such FDR had been deposited. A report dated 02.08.2019 from the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court-01, South West District, Dwarka District Courts, New Delhi has been received and confirms that FDR bearing no. 67362290542 dated 13.05.2016, for an amount of Rs. ten lakhs drawn on State Bank of Travancore Branch at Tilak Nagar, New Delhi is lying on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate in the case arising out of FIR no. 94/2015.
7. The second respondent has the liberty to approach the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate with appropriate application upon which the FDR mentioned above shall be released to her.
8. Pertinent to note here th
