Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Deepak Malhotra & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. - Respondents
Cr.M.C. 275 of 2022
Decided On : 21-09-2023
498A - Quashing of FIR - 498A/406/506/34 of IPC - The court discussed the settlement between the parties, the compliance of the settlement terms, and the implications of the settlement on the quashing of the FIR. Key legal provisions such as the power of the court to quash criminal proceedings and the principle of estoppel were considered in reaching the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed to quash FIR No. 51/2014 registered under section 498A/406/506/34 of IPC. The parties had resolved their matrimonial disputes amicably and the petitioner had deposited the settlement amount in court. However, the respondent failed to cooperate in quashing the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties had entered into an amicable settlement without fear, force, or coercion. The court considered the compliance of the settlement terms and the implications of the settlement on the quashing of the FIR.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the parties could backtrack from the settlement and whether the court had jurisdiction to consider the judgment and findings passed by the Division bench.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once the terms of the settlement have been complied with, the wife is stopped from resiling from the settlement. The court also emphasized that court proceedings shouldn't be allowed to turn into a tool of intimidation or persecution.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 51/2014 along with all the pending applications.
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
1. The present petition has been filed for quashing FIR No. 51/2014 registered at Police Station CWC Nanakpura under section 498A/406/506/34 of IPC along with all the consequential proceedings.
2. Briefly stated, Respondent no. 2 filed a complaint in SPUWAC on 31.12.2013 against the petitioners for harassment, cruelty, torture for the demand of dowry, and criminal breach of trust. In her complaint, the complainant inter-alia stated that she got married to Petitioner No. 1 on 12.12.2008 according to Hindu Rites & rituals at Air-Force Auditorium, Dhaula Kuan, New Delhi. Her parents spent money in marriage beyond their capacity. After the marriage, she was harassed, taunted, and tortured mentally and physically for dowry by her husband and in-laws i.e., the present petitioners. Thereafter, both parties were called at SPUW&C, Nanakpura, New Delhi for counseling/mediation proceedings, but they failed in the mediation proceedings and resultantly the present case FIR No. 51/2014 was registered at PS CWC under sections 498A/406/34 of IPC.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that both the parties instituted multiple litigations against each other and their respective families including the present FIR. It is submitted that the charge-sheet, in this case, has already been filed and the matter is pending before the Learned MM, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
4. Learned Counsel submits that during the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have resolved their disputes amicably before the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in MAT. APP. (FC) 156/2020 vide order dated 16.12.2021. The matrimonial disputes between the parties were resolved and thereafter divorce was granted by this Court. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that Respondent No. 2 accepted to settle all her claims towards permanent alimony, stridhan, etc. by accepting payment of Rs. 60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs). Further, she agreed to apply for quashing of the present FIR. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this court took the settlement on record and directed the Parties to remain bound by the settlement, and further directed that payment were to be made in court within the next one week.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the petitioner deposited the entire settlement amount of Rs. 60 Lacs in Court on 21.12.2021 vide Demand Draft no 2564648, dated 20.12.2021 drawn on ICICI Bank, 07 Connaught Place New Delhi. Further on 21.12.2021, after the deposit of the amount of Rs. 60 Lacs, a quashing petition was drafted and was sent to Respondent No. 2 for her signatures. After receipt of the Email Respondent No.2 failed to cooperate in quashing of present FIR.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent no 2 is appearing before this court and yet not coming forward to comply with the directions of the Division Bench as recorded in the order dated 16.12.2021. It is furthermore submitted that the approach of Respondent No. 2 is incomprehensible in as much as she is in blatant contempt of the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. Learned counsel submits that during the submissions made by respondent no. 2 on 21.08.2023 in court, she openly stated that she needs more money from Petitioner No. 1 i.e., over and above Rs. 60 Lacs which clearly indicates Respondent no. 2's inequity.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that by denying the settlement recorded in court, Respondent No. 2 is misusing the process of the Court and the further continuance of the criminal proceedings, at the instance of Respondent No.2 in the present case will cause a miscarriage of justice.
8. Respondent No. 2 has filed the counter affidavit to the present petitioner and it is submitted by the counsel that Respondent No.2 in MAT APP. (FC) No.156/2020 appeared through Video Conferencing for the proceedings on 16.12.2021 and, therefore, was unable to und
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once the terms of a settlement have been complied with, the parties are estopped from resiling from the settlement, and court proceedings shou....
The court can exercise inherent powers under section 482 of the Code to quash non-compoundable offences, especially in cases of amicable settlement in matrimonial differences.
The court can quash FIRs in matrimonial disputes when a compromise has been achieved, as encouraged by the Supreme Court.
The court emphasized the power to quash FIRs in matrimonial disputes when parties reach an amicable settlement, prioritizing justice and resolution over prosecution.
Continuing criminal proceedings after a mutual divorce settlement constitutes an abuse of process of law, as established in this case.
The court held that in matrimonial disputes where parties have reached an amicable settlement, continuation of criminal proceedings is an abuse of process and not in the interest of justice.
High Courts can quash FIRs in matrimonial disputes when parties amicably settle, as continuance would lead to abuse of judicial process and not serve the ends of justice.
The main legal principle established is the encouragement of amicable settlements in matrimonial disputes, as well as the voluntary nature of settlements and the absence of fear, force, or coercion.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
