Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 4752

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Wasim & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State & Anr. – Respondents
Cr.M.C. 4498 of 2022
Decided On : 05-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Mohammad Farhat Qadeeri, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP, for the State with SI Abhishek, P.S. Khajuri Khas.

The main legal point established is that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code can be exercised to quash non-compoundable offenses after considering the nature of the offense and the amicable settlement between the parties in cases arising from matrimonial differences.

Headnote:
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR - Settlement Deed - 498A, 406 of IPC - B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675; K. Srinivas Rao v. D. A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226; Yashpal Chaudhrani and Others vs. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) and Another, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8179
Fact of the Case:

The petition seeks the quashing of FIR No. 472/2017 under Section 498A, 406 of IPC, following a settlement between the parties. The parties were married according to Muslim rites and ceremonies, had a child, and subsequently lived separately due to misunderstandings. A settlement deed was entered into, including divorce/Talaq pronouncement and financial arrangements.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the parties had amicably settled their disputes, including financial and custody matters, and had voluntarily entered into the settlement without coercion. It considered the settled legal principles and decided to quash the FIR and all related proceedings.
Issues: The issues involved the quashing of the FIR and related proceedings following an amicable settlement between the parties, including divorce/Talaq pronouncement and financial arrangements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the settled legal principle that cases arising from matrimonial differences should be put to rest if the parties have reached an amicable settlement. It considered the nature of the offense and the voluntary nature of the settlement, leading to the decision to quash the FIR and related proceedings.
Final Decision: The court quashed FIR No. 472/2017 under section 498A/406 of IPC and all related proceedings, disposing of the petition.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of FIR No. 472/2017 registered at P.S. Khajoori Khas, under Section 498A, 406 of IPC, pursuant to a settlement between the petitioners and the Respondent no. 2.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Respondent no.2/complainant married petitioner no.1 on 28/01/2015 in accordance with the Muslim Rites and Ceremonies. From this wedlock a girl child namely Baby Iza Ansari was born on 26.10.2015. However, on account of misunderstandings, various differences, and mental incompatibility, the parties started living separately in November 2015. The Respondent no 2 registered a complaint in the CAW cell on which the current FIR no 472/2017 was registered against the petitioners.

3. Learned Counsel further submits that during the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have resolved their disputes amicably, and in furtherance thereof, they have entered into a settlement deed dated 30/09/2019. In terms of the settlement, out of the total amount of Rs.1,20,000/, the remaining payment of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees seventy-four thousand) in cash has been made today in court.

4. Pursuant to the settlement, Petitioner No 1 has pronounced/delivered divorce/Talaq to Respondent No 2 in the presence of witnesses and Respondent No 2 has accepted the Talaq pronounced/delivered by Petitioner No 1. Furthermore, the Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that since the parties have resolved all their differences amicably, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to quash FIR No. 472/2017under section 498A/406 of IPC registered at PS Khajoori Khas and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.

5. It is settled that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code are required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Further, the High Court can quash non- compoundable offenses after considering the nature of the offense and the amicable settlement between the concerned parties. Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that the cases arising out of matrimonial differences should be put to a quietus if the parties have reached an amicable settlement. Reliance may be placed upon: B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675; K. Srinivas Rao v. D. A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226; Yashpal Chaudhrani and Others vs. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) and Another, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8179.

6. Both parties are present in court and have duly been identified by the IO. Respondent No. 2 submits that she has entered the settlement deed voluntarily without any fear, force, or coercion. She submits that other petitions have already been withdrawn or dismissed. And since the marriage between the parties has also been dissolved by mutual divorce/Talaq, she has no objection if FIR No. 472/2017under section 498A/406 of IPC registered at PS Khajoori Khas and all the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

7. Perusal of the record indicates that from this matrimonial wedlock, a girl child namely Baby Iza Ansari was born on 26.10.2015.Both parties have made their joint statement stating the rights of the child are not settled and Baby Iza Ansari can avail her legal rights in any manner.

8. The parties have reached on settlement vide settlement deed dated 30.09.2019 on the following terms and conditions:

"1. Whereas the Nikah/Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 28.01.2015 at Delhi, according to Muslim rites & ceremony, out of the said wedlock a girl child namely Iza Ansari was born on 26.10.20215, who is now in the care and custody of the Petitioner/wife. Parties are living separately from each other since 2016.

2. That the respondent/husband has pronounced delivered the divorce/TALAQ to the petitioner/wife in the presence of marginal witnesses and the petitioner/wife has excepted the TALAQ pronounce/delivered by the respondent/husband.

3. Whereas t