3.5 CRORES to quash 498a,406 case. Add 2 lakhs to martyrs fund! Marriage is scared. Save Marriage. Save culture

3crore 50lakhs ONLY to quash 498a,406 34 case. Abla agrees to quash so …quashed !! Please Add something for a social cause …say Rs 2 lakhs to police martyrs fund! Submitted at the feet of all who say Marriage is scared. Save Marriage… the mistake is NOT with marriage !!

"… the respondent No.2 and the petitioner No.1 have amicably settled their disputes vide Memorandum of Mutual Understanding dated 03.03.2015, for a total sum of Rs.3,50,00,000/- (Three Crores Fifty Lakhs). As per the said settlement…."

and

"…12. Before parting with this order, I find force in the submission of learned APP for State regarding putting the petitioners to some terms. At this stage, petitioners No.1 and 2 have come forward and submitted that they are ready to contribute a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each for some welfare purposes.

13. Accordingly, the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with the Delhi Police Martyrs Fund within two weeks from today. Proof thereof shall be furnished to the learned Trial Court under intimation to the Investigating Officer/SHO concerned…."

************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: 20th January, 2016

CRL.M.C. No.230/2016

VARUN AGGARWL AND ORS ….. Petitioners
Represented by: Mr.Pawan Kumar, Advocate with Petitioners in person.

Versus

STATE AND ANR. ….. Respondents
Represented by: Mr.G.M.Farooqui, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Respondent No. 2 in person.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.1139/2014 registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against them.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2, namely, Ms.Purnima Gupta, consequent upon certain matrimonial and domestic disputes having arisen between the parties. The case is at the initial stage of investigation as charge sheet has not yet been filed. Meanwhile, the respondent No.2 and the petitioner No.1 have amicably settled their disputes vide Memorandum of Mutual Understanding dated 03.03.2015, for a total sum of Rs.3,50,00,000/- (Three Crores Fifty Lakhs). As per the said settlement, first instalment of Rs.1,50,00,000/- (One Crore Fifty Lakhs) was paid immediately on executing the said settlement as well as signing and filing of first motion petition. A sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) was paid at the time of recording second motion petition for divorce by mutual consent and the balance amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore) is paid today in the Court by way of Manager’s Cheque bearing No.014589 dated 01.12.2015 drawn on HDFC Bank, Punjabi Bagh, Club Road, New Delhi, which facts have not been disputed by the respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that consequent to the said settlement, marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has been dissolved vide decree of mutual divorce dated 09.10.2015 under Section 13 B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Since the agreed amount has been paid by the petitioners, thus, respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue her case further against the petitioners.

4. Respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court. For her identification, she has produced original Aadhar Card bearing No.652494778108 issued by the Government of India (original seen and returned). Photocopy thereof is annexed at page No.49 of this petition. The respondent No.2 does not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the present matter has been amicably settled, marriage between her and the petitioner No.1 has been dissolved vide decree of divorce dated 09.10.2015, she has received the entire agreed amount and has no complaints whatsoever against the petitioner No.1 and his family members. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 15.01.2016 filed in support of the present petition and states that now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question may be brought to an end. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that the case is at the initial stage of investigation as charge sheet has not yet been filed. He submits that the present matter is a matrimonial one and since the respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the case further against petitioners, no purpose would be served if the petitioners are directed to face trial. However, pursuant to settlement before the parties, if this Court is inclined to allow this petition, the State has no objection provided heavy cost be imposed upon the petitioners to set into motion the government machinery and for usurp of the public time and money.

6. Under the circumstances and looking to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Apex Court has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant; by observing as under:

"58. ….However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and
predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil,
mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly
relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is
basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled
all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that
such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may
within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal
proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on
the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the
offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal
proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be
defeated."

7. While recognizing the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, the aforesaid dictum has been affirmed by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC 466. The pertinent observations of the Apex Court are as under:-

29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the
following principles by which the High Court would be guided in
giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and
exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting
the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the
settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be
distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the
offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482
of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal
proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the
parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this
power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis
petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding
factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on
either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions
which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly,
for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute
like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by
public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed
merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly
and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of
commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or
family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved
their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as
to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him
by not quashing the criminal cases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of
heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally
treated as crime against the society and not against the individual
alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely
because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the
charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High
Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is
there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient
evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under
Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court
to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is
inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons
used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the
victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this
prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there
is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction
are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the
settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter
case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea
compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the
parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that
the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony
between them which may improve their future relationship.

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482
of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those
cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the
alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under
investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the
settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is
because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still
on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those
cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or
the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show
benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima
facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On
the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or
after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of
argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its
power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court
would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to
come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC
is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction
is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the
appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the
parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in
acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial
court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is
already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no
question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."

8. In the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr. (2013) 4 SCC 58, wherein the Supreme Court in respect of the matrimonial disputes has specifically held as follows:-

"15. In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine
settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are
on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable,
if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied
that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any
pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice,
Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power
of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.

16. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent
times. They institution of marriage occupies an important place and
it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every
effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to
enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the
parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes
amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of
law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the
courts should be less hesitant in exercising their extraordinary
jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482
should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the
Court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing
the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or
that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be
quashed…."

9. Both the parties who are present in the Court today, approbate the aforesaid settlement dated 03.03.2015 and undertake to remain bound by the same.

10. Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties and the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution because of which, its chances of success in the matter are now greatly diminished. Therefore, in view of the law discussed above, in the facts and circumstances as noted above, I am of the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus as continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.

11. Consequently, FIR No.1139/2014 registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

12. Before parting with this order, I find force in the submission of learned APP for State regarding putting the petitioners to some terms. At this stage, petitioners No.1 and 2 have come forward and submitted that they are ready to contribute a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each for some welfare purposes.

13. Accordingly, the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with the Delhi Police Martyrs Fund within two weeks from today. Proof thereof shall be furnished to the learned Trial Court under intimation to the Investigating Officer/SHO concerned.

14. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.

15. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the petitioners.

SURESH KAIT (JUDGE)

JANUARY 20, 2016

sb

<SMALL>*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
*******************************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

</SMALL>

*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases

regards

Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist