Daily Archives: February 28, 2016

A wife who says “father in law used to force himself on her after drinking..” takes 5 lakhs to quash case !! Delhi HC

A wife who claims all sorts of ill treatment, including that her father in law used to force himself on her after getting drunk accepts to quash everything for just 5 lakhs !! Whom should we pity now ??

The Wife initially makes very serious claims. A sample of the same can be see in the enclosed order which states “….After a week of marriage, the complainant/respondent no.2 was subjected to torture, harassment and other violence by her in-laws for not giving sufficient dowry to their satisfaction. The accused persons, committed various offences including unlawful demand of dowry, ill- treating, calling by bad names, forcing to entertain strange people, using abusive language and threatening to kill the complainant. The husband of the complainant used to beat her mercilessly. Soon after the marriage, the husband of the complainant went to Indonasia and in his absence, the mother-in-law of the complainant started to harass and misbehave with the complainant. The mother-in-law of the complainant even threw a plate full of vegetables at her face and since then she was not provided with food and she had to survive of stale food and water. The father-in-law of the complainant also used to force himself on her after getting drunk. Even during the pregnancy, the complainant was forced to do all the household chores. ….”

But suddenly when it comes to mutual consent divorce WITHOUT the kid, poor wife now accepts 5 lakhs and all complaints are quashed !! “…As per the compromise deed, it has been agreed between the parties that they shall take divorce by way of mutual consent. It is agreed that both parties shall mutually get the FIR in question quashed before this Court. It is further agreed that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be payable in two installments by petitioner no.1 to respondent no.2. It is agreed that the schedule of payment of the aforesaid amount shall be done as enunciated in the compromise deed. …..”

The custody of the kid remains with the dad though wife gets moolah !!

What should we say …. should we say “….Justice SHALL prevail !!..”


IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL.M.C. 5047/2015 & Crl. M.A. 18870/2015

Date of Decision : February 12th, 2016

NAVEEN KALRA & ORS                              ….. Petitioners
Through      Mr. K.G. Gopalakrishnan and Ms. Zeba Khair, Advs.

versus

STATE                                             ….. Respondent
Through    Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State

Mr. Prakash Kumar, Adv. for R-2 alongwith respondent No.2 in person

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

P.S.TEJI, J.

  1.  The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Naveen H. Kalra, Sh. Harish S. Kalra, Smt. Kiran Kalra and Smt. Pooja Darira for quashing of FIR No.161/2012 dated 04.08.2012, under Sections 498A/406/506/509/34 IPC registered at Police Station Dwarka South on the basis of the compromise deed arrived at between the petitioner no.1 and respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Manveer Kaur Anand on 25.11.2015.
  2.  Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by her counsel.http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
  3.  The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 was solemnized in April, 2008 according to proper rites and ceremonies under the HMA. After a week of marriage, the complainant/respondent no.2 was subjected to torture, harassment and other violence by her in-laws for not giving sufficient dowry to their satisfaction. The accused persons, committed various offences including unlawful demand of dowry, ill- treating, calling by bad names, forcing to entertain strange people, using abusive language and threatening to kill the complainant. The husband of the complainant used to beat her mercilessly. Soon after the marriage, the husband of the complainant went to Indonasia and in his absence, the mother-in-law of the complainant started to harass and misbehave with the complainant. The mother-in-law of the complainant even threw a plate full of vegetables at her face and since then she was not provided with food and she had to survive of stale food and water. The father-in-law of the complainant also used to force himself on her after getting drunk. Even during the pregnancy, the complainant was forced to do all the household chores. On the eve of Lohri, the sister-in-law of the complainant demanded many valuable things as shagun and Rs. 1 lacs too from the complainant. In January, 2009, Mrs. Pooja Darira abused the complainant by saying that her father is a liar. In the month of June, 2009 at Delhi, the husband of the complainant again picked up a fight with her in front of her father and gave her beatings while she was pregnant. One day, the accused persons tried to pour phenyl in the mouth of the complainant forcefully. On 08.09.2011, the accused persons threatened the complainant and asked her to divorce her husband. One day, the husband of the complainant asked her to call her father and ask him to take her away. The complainant left with no option, called her father and he came to Bangalore to amicably sort out all the issues but to no avail and thus they finally left Bangalore on 16.10.2011. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the FIR in question against the accused persons/petitioners. The petitioner no.1 approached this Court for the grant of bail and the same was granted to him. Later on, with the intervention of the common friends and relatives etc. the parties reached at an amicable settlement.
  4.  Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the compromise deed, it has been agreed between the parties that they shall take divorce by way of mutual consent. It is agreed that both parties shall mutually get the FIR in question quashed before this Court. It is further agreed that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be payable in two installments by petitioner no.1 to respondent no.2. It is agreed that the schedule of payment of the aforesaid amount shall be done as enunciated in the compromise deed. It is agreed that respondent no. 2 shall withdraw all the cases filed by her that are pending before the Courts concerned. It is agreed that the permanent custody of the child Jai would be with petitioner no.1 and that respondent no.2 would have visitation rights as per the convenience of both parties and the child. It is also agreed that respondent no. 2 shall have the freedom to take the child on one vacation in a year and as many thereafter on mutual co-ordination. It is agreed that respondent no.2 shall not claim for maintenance, permanent alimony or istridhan etc. from petitioner no.1 and that they both shall not stake any claim or share in the movable and immovable properties of each other or their family members for all times, henceforth. It is further agreed that they shall not file any claim, complaint or any other proceedings, civil or criminal, against each other or their family members before any Court of law or before any authority, instrumentality, forum or agency of State or otherwise with respect to any cause of action arising out of the marriage. It is further agreed that in case either party fails to appear before this Court for the quashing petitions or to execute any of the terms and conditions of the present compromise, the parties will rescind the terms and conditions and revert back to the original position as if no such terms and conditions were entered upon. Respondent No.2 affirms the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 08.12.2015 supporting this petition. In the affidavit, the respondent no.2 has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of the respondent No.2 has been recorded in this regard in which she stated that she has entered into a compromise with the petitioners and has settled all the disputes with them. She further stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
  5.  In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-     “61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”
  6.  The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) 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 http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
  7.  The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The respondent no.2 agrees to the quashing of the FIR in question without any threat or coercion or undue influence and has stated that the matter has been settled out of her own free will. As the matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be an extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal proceedings between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
  8.  The incorporation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provision of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured; where the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid the causing of harassment to any person by using the provision of Cr.P.C. or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery of justice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent the express provisions of law.
  9.  It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case of Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009 has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.
  10.  It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not affect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon’ble Apex Court justified the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non- compoundable. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that notwithstanding the fact the offence under Section 498A IPC is a non- compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.
  11.  The Courts in India are now normally taking the view that endeavour should be taken to promote conciliation and secure speedy settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs such as, matrimonial disputes between the couple or/and between the wife and her in-laws. India being a vast country naturally has large number of married persons resulting into high numbers of matrimonial disputes due to differences in temperament, life-styles, opinions, thoughts etc. between such couples, due to which majority is coming to the Court to get redressal. In its 59th report, the Law Commission of India had emphasized that while dealing with disputes concerning the family, the Court ought to adopt an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings and that it should make reasonable efforts at settlement before the commencement of the trial. Further it is also the constitutional mandate for speedy disposal of such disputes and to grant quick justice to the litigants. But, our Courts are already over burdened due to pendency of large number of cases because of which it becomes difficult for speedy disposal of matrimonial disputes alone. As the matrimonial disputes are mainly between the husband and the wife and personal matters are involved in such disputes, so, it requires conciliatory procedure to bring a settlement between them. Nowadays, mediation has played a very important role in settling the disputes, especially, matrimonial disputes and has yielded good results. The Court must exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to put an end to the matrimonial litigations at the earliest so that the parties can live peacefully.
  12.  Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility and is a fit case for this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.
  13.  In the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of statement made by the respondent No.2 and the compromise arrived at between the parties, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.
  14.  Accordingly, this petition is allowed an FIR No.161/2012 dated 04.08.2012, under Sections 498A/406/506/509/34 IPC registered at Police Station Dwarka South the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.
  15.  This petition is accordingly disposed of.
  16.  Application Crl. M.A. 18870/2015 is also disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE FEBRUARY 12, 2016/dd

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


Wife appeals exparte decree 10 years later & gets 82 lakhs alimony. Total 23 years marital bliss! Orissa HC case

Married in 1993, trouble starts soon after birth of kid circa 1996. There are claims of extra marital affairs etc. Wife leaves husband in 2000 and never returns. Husband wins ex parte divorce in 2003 (wife hasn’t appeared in spite of being served is what is said) . Wife stays silent till 2013 and then starts a case for divorce on grounds of cruelty !! In 2014 she claims that she NEVER knew of the earlier decree dated 2003 (i.e. for 11 years) !! Lower court dismisses wife’s claim. Matter reaches Orissa HC where HC says “Pay” because reconciliation is NOT possible !! Husband and his dad end by paying approx 62 lakhs !! Meanwhile the daughter is a major etc etc, still husband pays


ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

MATA No.118 of 2014 & MATA No.125 of 2014

Appeals under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the order dated 10.9.2014 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in C.P. No.460 of 2013 and the order dated 22.8.2003 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in C.P. No.781 of 2002.

MATA No.118 of 2014
Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra and another              ……      Appellants
-Versus-
Partha Sarathi Mishra                               ……    Respondent
For Appellants:      M/S. Bipin Bihari Jena, J.Bhagat, D.Pradhan and T.K.Jena
For Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Sahu

MATA No.125 of 2014
Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra              ……          Appellant
-Versus-
Partha Sarathi Mishra                     ……      Respondent
For Appellant:      M/S. Bipin Bihari Jena, J.Bhagat, D.Pradhan and T.K.Jena
For Respondent : M/s.Rakesh Sahu, A.R.Panigrahi & Rajesh Sahu


Date of Order: 22.02.2016


P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD PRASAD
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT MOHANTY

BISWAJIT MOHANTY, J.

Since both the above noted appeals were taken up analogously, this common order is being passed to dispose of both the appeals. The factual matrix of both the appeals are as follows:

2.          Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra is appellant No.1 in Mata No.118 of 2014 and the sole appellant in MATA No.125 of 2014. Partha Sarathi Mishra is the sole respondent in both the above noted appeals. Their daughter-Anmol Mishra is appellant No.2 in MATA No.118 of 2014. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

3.          A perusal of record shows that the marriage between Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra and Partha Sarathi Mishra was solemnized on 11.07.1993. Out of the wedlock, daughter, Anmol Mishra was born on 3.6.1996. Trouble started brewing between the spouses even before the daughter was born and got aggravated after the birth of the daughter. Dispute arose between the spouses due to alleged extra marital affairs. Thereafter, the allegation is that Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra went back to her father’s house in November, 2000 and never returned. In such background, theatre of action got shifted to Court rooms and that Partha Sarathi Mishra filed C.P. No.781 of 2002 under Sections 13 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage and for custody of their minor daughter, Anmol Mishra in the Family Court, Cuttack. Despite summons, Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra did not appear and accordingly, on 22.8.2003, the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack decreed Civil Proceeding No.781 of 2002 ex parte against Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra and dissolved their marriage by passing a decree of divorce. The learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack further directed to give the custody of the then minor daughter, Anmol Mishra to Partha Sarathi Mishra. In 2013, Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra filed Civil Proceeding No.460 of 2013 before the Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. She also filed Interlocutory Application No.118 of 2013 claiming interim maintenance for herself and for her minor daughter, Anmol Mishra in Family Court, Bhubaneswar. During pendency of Civil Proceeding No.460 of 2013, Anmol Mishra became a major on 3.6.2014. According to Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra, she came to know about order dated 22.8.2013 passed in Civil Proceeding No.781 of 2002 on 16.8.2014. However, on 10.9.2014, Civil Proceeding No.460 of 2013 was disposed of along with I.A. No.118 of 2013 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar holding that the cases were not at all maintainable in the background of order dated 22.8.2003 passed in Civil Proceeding No.781 of 2002. Challenging the said order dated 10.09.2014, Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra and Anmol Mishra filed MATA No.118 of 2014 on 14.10.2014. Thereafter, on 22.10.2014, Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra filed MATA No.125 of 2014 challenging the order dated 22.8.2003 passed in Civil Proceeding No.781 of 2002. On 20.4.2015, Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra, Anmol Mishra and Partha Sarathi Mishra appeared in Court along with their respective counsel. When this Court realized that the re-union was not possible, it went into the question with regard to quantum of permanent alimony. In order to give the parties a chance regarding settlement relating to permanent alimony, MATA No.118 of 2014 was directed to be taken up on 22.4.2015 along with MATA No.125 of 2014. On 22.4.2015, all the parties along with their respective counsel presented themselves before this Court and the matter was taken up in the Chambers. After a long deliberation, the parties came to an amicable settlement on following terms and conditions relating to all the disputes between them. The terms of settlement were as follows:-

  1. “That the two Federal Bank Limited Certificates issued by Cuttack
    Branch from Account No.13770300116517 dated 6.8.2011 and Account
    No.13770300116012 dated 12.7.2011, both standing in the joint names
    of Sri Parthasarathi Mishra and Anmol Mishra, wherein it is mentioned
    that either or survivor can get them encashed, the first certificate
    having maturity value of Rs.7,44,274.00 and the subsequent having
    maturity value of Rs.7,07,317.00 be handed over to Anmol Mishra who
    is entitled to get them encahsed on maturity. The said certificates
    have been handed over to Anmol Mishra in presence of the counsel for
    both sides as well as the father and she is directed to make an
    endorsement regarding receipt thereof on the order-sheet of this
    Matrimonial Appeal.
  2. That the bank account in the Federal Bank Limited opened in the
    name of Anmol Mishra, being bank Account no.125 (New No.1257) will
    continue with Anmol Mishra and the father will hand over the passbook
    of the said bank account to Anmol Mishra on 12.5.2015, when this
    matter shall come up again.
  3. That the father Parthasarathi Mishra will give a draft of
    Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) in the name of Anmol Mishra on
    12th May, 2015.
  4. That the father will come with a draft of Rs.20,00,000/-(Rupees
    Twenth lakhs) on 3rd of July, 2015 in the name of Madhusmita Pujari @
    Mishra.
  5. That the father Parthasarathi Mishra will come with another bank
    draft of Rs.28,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight lakhs) in the name of
    Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra on 5th January, 2016.The above five terms and conditions have been accepted and agreed to
    by both the sides in presence of their respective counsel on their
    own volition without any threat, force, coercion or mis-
    representation. This is in full and final settlement. These terms and
    conditions, we repeat, are in full and final settlement of all the
    disputes of any nature between the parties.”

4.           The matter was further taken up on 12.5.2015, 3.7.2015, 10.12.2015 and finally on 5.1.2016. By 5.1.2016 the terms of settlement as delineated on 22.4.2015 have been implemented. Accordingly, this Court recorded that there remained no other dispute between the parties. In such background, nothing remains to be decided in both the appeals. However, before giving a quietus to the matter, it is directed that since the matters have ended in compromise, all the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties should be ignored and should have no effect in future, so that the future lives of the parties, particularly, that of the daughter, Anmol Mishra would in no way be affected. However, we make it clear that we have not interfered with the order dated 22.8.2003 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack dissolving the marriage between Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra and Parthasarathi Mishra passed in C.P. No.781 of 2002. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Both the above noted appeals are accordingly disposed of.

Biswajit Mohanty, J.
Vinod Prasad, J. I agree.
Vinod Prasad, J.

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

Dated 22nd February, 2016

bns

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