Category Archives: 498a quash WITH money !!

Separated 2 days after marriage, money paid, wife remarried, still 498a runs 9 years & NOT QUASHED ! The Gamble that is called marriage !!

In nutshell …
* marriage solemnized on 09.02.2007 @ Delhi
* from 11.02.2007, respondent No. 2 (wife) started living separately (i.e.) she left in 2 days !!
* they did not cohabitate with each other since the date of their separation
* there are no issues (children) out of his wedlock !!.
* on lodging a complaint .. registered as FIR No. 927/2007, the trial began !!
* Husband paid 4 lakhs ++ to get bail and get out ! (so there must have been full threat of arrest etc)
* a decree of divorce between petitioner (husband) and respondent No. 2 (wife) has been passed
* both parties have re-married !!
* further, petitioners Nos.2 to 6 are the parents, brother and sister in law of respondent Nos. 2 and are not concerned with the difference between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2.

Still the Honourable court says, this case cannot be quashed !! ” …In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the foregoing discussions on the principles relating to exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court does not find the present case being fit for exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in the present case. Finding no merit in the present petition, the present petition is dismissed….”


IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on : September 30, 2016

CRL.M.C. 303/2016

SACHIN & ORS                                        ….. Petitioners
Through:          Mr.Neeraj Gupta, Advocate.

versus

STATE & ANR                                          ….. Respondents
Through:     Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J.

  1.   1. By this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. the petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No. 927/2007, registered under Section 498-A/406/34 of IPC at Police Station Saraswati Vihar, Delhi.
  2.   2. In nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with respondent No. 2 on 09.02.2007 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Delhi and from 11.02.2007, respondent No. 2 started living separately. They did not cohabitate with each other since the date of their separation and there is no issue out of his wedlock. On lodging a complaint by respondent No. 2 which was registered as FIR No. 927/2007, the trial began. Even efforts were made by elders and relatives of both the sides to sort out and reconcile the disputes between them but TO no avail.
  3.   3. At the time of filing an application for seeking anticipatory bail, both the parties agreed to settle their dispute amicably. Accordingly a settlement according to which the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.4.5 lacs to respondent No. 2 for past, present and future maintenance, permanent alimony, dowry, istridhan articles, etc. A statement to this effect was also recorded before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The settlement was later on modified on 11.12.2007 and the one time alimony was reduced from 4.5 to 4.25 lacs. Both the parties decided to dissolve their marriage through mutual consent and get the FIR quashed.
  4.   4. It is further contention of the petitioner that he had paid a sum of Rs.2 lacs at the time of grant of anticipatory bail; and further sum of Rs. 1 lac on 09.09.2008 at the time of recording of statement in the first motion and another sum of Rs.1 lac at the time of recording statement in second motion on 25.09.2008. The balance of Rs.25,000/- was to be paid at the time of making statement before this Court for quashing the FIR.
  5.   5. It is further contention of the petitioner that the decree of divorce between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 has been passed and now both the parties are leading their independent life. That both the parties have re-married and are settled happily in their present family life. But the proceedings under Section 498-A/406/34 of IPC are still pending before learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi. It is the further contention of the petitioner that respondent No. 2 is not attending the Court proceedings since the date of passing of decree of divorce. It is only during the proceedings before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate the petitioner was advised to prefer the present petition for quashing of the FIR before this Court.
  6.   6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner contended that the marriage between the parties has been irretrievably broken and the marriage has already been dissolved by decree of divorce with mutual consent, even the claims have been fully settled between the parties, there is no purpose of continuing the criminal proceedings emanating from the FIR in question. It is further submitted that the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are the parents, brother and sister in law of respondent Nos. 2 and are not concerned with the difference between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 2. At last, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the FIR in question as no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings emanating from the FIR in question.
  7.   7. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of this court in Crl. M.C. No.3230-32/2006 titled as Purshotam Gupta & Ors. Vs. State & Anr, decided on 23.01.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the said judgment also referred the judgment of the Apex Court in Ruchi Agarwal vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal & Others, (2005) 3 SCC 2009 and Mohd. Shamim vs. Nahid Begum (Smt.), (2005) 3 SCC 302, in which on the similar facts, where the complaint under Section 498A/406/34 was filed by the complainant, later divorce by mutual consent was obtained, terms of the settlement were also complied with and the payment made by the petitioner were encashed by the respondent (wife), but she was not coming forward for quashing of the FIR. In those judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court had quashed the FIRs.
  8.   8. On 25.01.2016, the present petition was taken up for hearing when the notice was directed to be issued to respondent No. 2 for 02.05.2016. As per service report, the notice issued to respondent No. 2 was awaited and fresh notices were ordered to be issued for 17th August 2016. The report in respect of notice issued for that date was to the effect that no such person is residing at the given address. Learned counsel for the petitioner requested for that the petition be heard finally on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties; the decree of divorce by mutual consent was obtained from the competent Court; both the parties have remarried and the fact that the respondent No. 2 (wife) is not contesting her complaint before the Trial Court. Perusal of the petition itself reveals that no other specific ground has been raised by the petitioner for exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by this Court.
  9.   9. In Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others, AIR 2008 SC 251, the Apex Court held as under:     “Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute.”
  10.   10. So far as the cases relating to quashing of complaint/FIR are concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already framed the guidelines/principles for quashing the complaints/FIR, in a landmark judgment in State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., 1992 SCC Supl. (1) 335, which have been reiterated in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 773 of 2003, titled as Sundar Babu & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu decided on 19.02.2009, the extracts of which are reproduced hereunder:

| Though the scope for interference while exercising jurisdiction under
| Sec.482 Cr.P.C. is limited, but it can be made in cases as spelt out
| in the case of Bhajan Lal. The illustrative examples laid down
| therein are as follows:
|
|  1. Where the allegations made in the first information report or
| the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
| accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
| or make out a case against the accused.
|
|  2. Where the allegations in the first information report and other
| materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable
| offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under
| Sec.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
| the purview of Sec.155(2) of the Code.
|
|  3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
| complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not
| disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against
| the accused.
|
|  4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable
| offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no
| investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a
| Magistrate as contemplated under Sec. 155 (2) of the Code.
|
|  5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd
| and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can
| ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
| proceeding against the accused.
|
|  6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
| provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal
| proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
| proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or
| the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
| the aggrieved party.
|
|  7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala
| fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
| ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
| to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

  1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further went on to observe as under:

| “The parameters for exercise of power under Sec.482 have been laid
| down by this Court in several cases. The Section does not confer any
| new power on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which
| the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages
| three circumstances, under which the inherent jurisdiction may be
| exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code,
| (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise
| secure the ends of justice.
|
| It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible
| rule, which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No
| legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all
| cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent
| powers apart from express provisions of law, which are necessary for
| proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law.
| That is the doctrine, which finds expression in the section, which
| merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts.
| All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any
| express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers
| as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of
| administration of justice on the principle “quando lex aliquid alicui
| concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest”
| (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which
| it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the
| court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent
| jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised
| sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is
| justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself.
| It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial
| justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority
| of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is
| made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court
| has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the
| court to allow any action, which would result in injustice and
| prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would
| be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that
| initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court
| or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of
| justice.
|
| As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Sec.482
| of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power
| requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see
| that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound
| principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a
| legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a
| State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a
| case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the
| evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the
| issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and
| cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material.
| Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases
| in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction
| of quashing the proceeding at any stage.”

  1. From the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, this Court does not find even a single averment to the effect that the allegations made in the FIR do not constitute or make out any case against the petitioner or that there is no evidence against the petitioner regarding commission of a cognizable offence. The petitioner has also not contended that the allegations made in the FIR are so absurd or improbable or the fact that the criminal complaint filed against the petitioner is manifestly attended with mala fide or the proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motives for wreaking vengeance on the petitioner and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
  2. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the foregoing discussions on the principles relating to exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court does not find the present case being fit for exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in the present case. Finding no merit in the present petition, the present petition is dismissed.

  3. Before parting with the order, this court would like to place it on record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been stated hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose of disposing of the present petition. Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as expression of a final opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in the case which shall naturally have to be done by the Trial Court seized of the trial.

  4. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the present petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE

SEPTEMBER 30, 2016

pkb

28 lakhs before anticipatory bail in dowry case, Marriage WITHOUT kids. Patna HC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.4864 of 2016

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -39 Year- 2014 Thana -MAHILA P.S. District- SARAN

======================================================

Prashant Kumar Singh @ Sonu, Son of Dilip Kumar Singh Resident of
Sarvamangal E/256 A- Block, Khuntadih Sonari (East), Police Station-
Sonari Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. …. …. Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar
2. Nutan Kumari Singh, Daughter of Samrendra Kumar Singh, Residing at
Mohalla- Ware House Gudari Bazar Main Road, Police Station- Bhagwan
Bazar, Chapra, District- Saran. …. …. Opposite Party/s

======================================================

Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. S.Ehteshmuddin(App)

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

ORAL ORDER

01-09-2016

The petitioner being the husband of the informant is apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The basic accusation is of torture for non-fulfillment of the dowry demand.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner admits his marriage with the informant having no issue. The petitioner and the informant have now decided to part ways on payment of permanent alimony. A joint compromise petition has been filed stipulating that the petitioner has agreed to make payment of one time settlement amount of 28,00,000/-, out of which the petitioner has brought a bank draft of15,00,000/- vide draft no. 098028 drawn in Union Bank of India, Tin Plate Branch, Jamshedpur. . Counsel for the petitioner is handing over the draft to the counsel for opposite party no.2 for its being handed over to opposite party no.2. Rest of `13,00,000/- will be paid at the time of filing of Matrimonial Suit under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chapra. The parties have also agreed to withdraw all the cases lodged against each other.

Learned counsel for the informant has not controverted the contention of counsel for the petitioner and admits that he has received the draft of `15,00,000/-.

It is expected from the learned counsel for the informant to make endorsement of draft of `15,00,000/- on record.

Considering the present stand of the parties, let the above named petitioner be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of 12 weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of `10,000/– (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M., 1st Saran at Chapra in connection with Saran Mahila P.S. Case No. 39 of 2014, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)

Amrendra/-

U T

=== Select references ===

Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code : 341. Punishment for wrongful restraint.—Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code : 323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.—Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code : 504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.—Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provoca­tion to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code : [498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be pun­ished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.]

======================

50 lakhs for quashing 498a case ! Indian ‘settlement’ industry runs to 100s of crores per-annum !

Here’s a case where a husband is settling Rs 50 lakhs some 7 years after the case was registered and 9 years after FIR. And the “settlement” ..  a good 50 lakhs !! If just one case would settle at 50 Lakhs, imagine what the total “settlement” number would be at ??

Men are openly milked by the “system”. Of course one can blame the husband for paying, and I do NOT in anyway espouse or support “settlements” . But please note that this guy seems to have fought for quite some years B4 paying

=============

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 3462 of 2015

========================================================

DHAVAL DILIPKUMAR JOSHI & 2….Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1….Respondent(s)

========================================================

Appearance:
MS.P J.JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 ­ 3
MR MANISH J PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1

========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI

Date : 08/07/2016

ORAL ORDER

  1. This petition is preferred seeking quashment of complaint being Criminal Case No.2449/2009 dated 16.11.2009 registered before Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.5, Ahmedabad.
  2. During the pendency of this matter, parties have chosen to settle their dispute amicably. Yet another petition before this Court being Criminal Misc. Application No.15781 of 2016 has been disposed of in presence of complainant, wherein this Court has passed the following order on 07.07.2016:

“Rule returnable today. Learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1- State of Gujarat.

This Criminal Misc. Application is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashment of the complaint, being CR No.I-446 of 2007 registered with Vatva Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 498[A], 323, 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 & 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The original complainant -respondent No. 2 is present before this Court and urges that she has no objection if the complaint is quashed. The affidavit of the original complainant-respondent No.2 is brought on record. The parties have settled their disputes. The petition for divorce by way of consent under the Hindu Marriage Act is also pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ahmedabad. The applicant has deposited sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- towards the full and final settlement as permanent alimony. Necessary documents are also brought on record. She has entered into compromise out of their own volition.

Both the sides have been heard. This Court has taken a note of contents of the affidavit and the same have been verified by learned APP from the complainant. Considering the facts that this is matrimonial disputes and the parties have amicably settled the dispute, which being private in nature, so as to bring peace between the parties, this Court is of the opinion that they can be permitted to settle the same and the criminal proceedings which is otherwise not compoundable in nature, with the consent terms being placed on the record, deserves to be quashed. Apt it would be to reproduce the relevant observations made by the Apex Court in case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. v. Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr., reported in 2013 (3) GLR 1875, which reads thus –

“14. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S. Joshi (Supra), this Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings where dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered into between the parties who are willing to settle their HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Thu Jul 14 01:03:16 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/3462/2015 ORDER differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said decision is directly applicable to the case on hand and the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement arrived at.

  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. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

  16.There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The 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 its 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 the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. We also make it clear that exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. It HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Thu Jul 14 01:03:16 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/3462/2015 ORDER is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of the Code enables the High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enables this Court to pass such orders.”

As a parting note, request is also made by learned advocates appearing for the parties to expeditious proceed with the matter which is pending before the Family Court, Ahmedabad.

Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ahmedabad is hereby directed to expeditious proceed with the matter which is pending considering the young age of the parties.

In the result, this Criminal Misc. Application is allowed. The F.I.R. Being CR No.446 of 2007 filed before Vatva Police Station, Ahmedabad is hereby ordered to be quashed. Registry shall accept the vakalatpatra of Mr. Manish Patel, learned advocate appears for the original complainant- respondent No.2 Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.”

  Along this line, this petition deserves to be disposed of and accordingly stands disposed of.

  1. Resultantly, the request for quashment is acceded to and the impugned complaint is QUASHED with all consequential proceedings. DISPOSED OF, accordingly. Direct service is permitted.

(MS SONIA GOKANI, J.)

 

 

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


I claimed my husband is impotent, but it’s OK now, I’ve taken money, so quash !! Delhi HC

Delhi High Court

Sayantan Ghosh Vs. State & Anr

14 March 2016

Hon’ble Judges: P.S. Teji

Advocates Appeared: R.S. Dwivedi, Izhar Ahmad, S.K. Bhadur

Case Number: Crl.M.C. 5209/2015 & Crl.M.A. No. 18769/2015

P.S.Teji, J.

  1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Sayantan Ghosh for quashing of FIR No.313/2013 dated 22.07.2013, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Kalkaji on the basis of the mediation report, Delhi Mediation Centre, Delhi High Court, New Delhi in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner along with Mr. S.N.Ghosh (on behalf of himself & Mrs. Mandira Ghosh) and respondent no.2, namely, Smt. Tithi Ghosh on 29.05.2015.
  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.
  3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage between petitioner and the respondent no.2 was solemnized on 28.01.2012. After the marriage, the father-in-law of the complainant threatened her on petty issues. On 30.01.2012, the mother-in-law of the complainant asked her to vacate the room. On coming back to her room, the complainant found out that her earings were missing and when she asked her in-laws about the same, they hurled filthiest of abuses on her. After the marriage, the complainant discovered that her husband is an impotent. To avoid any type of physical relation with the complainant, her husband used to quarrel with her and torture her for many days. On 10.09.2012, the husband of the complainant became very violent and started hitting her. The complainant later on, packed her suitcase and came to her grandfather’s house with her mother. All the jewellery given by the parents of the complainant are still lying with her in-laws. The respondent no.2/complainant registered the FIR in question against the petitioner, S.N.Ghosh and Mrs. Mandira Ghosh on the basis of the complaint dated 23.09.2012. The petitioner filed for anticipatory bail which was granted to him. Later on, both the parties compromised their matter with each other.
  4. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the mediation report, it is agreed that the within two months from the date of this report, petitioner and respondent no.2 shall file joint petitions under Sections 13-B(1) & 13-B(2) of the H.M.A. before a competent Court of law for obtaining divorce by mutual consent. It is also agreed that petitioner and respondent no.2 will appear personally before the Court in respect of both of the above mentioned petitions of H.M.A. and shall give their statements before the concerned Court for getting their marriage dissolved. It is also agreed that petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs. 8 Lacs to respondent no.2 in lieu of stridhan of the respondent no.2 which she admits to having received the same. It is also agreed that petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 2 Lacs to respondent no.2 as full and final settlement in respect of past, present and future alimony of the respondent no.2. It is also agreed that out of the aforesaid Rs. 2 Lacs, petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 70,000/- each at the time of recording the statements of the parties in respect of the first and second motions respectively in the shape of DD/Pay-order in the name of respondent no.2. It is further agreed that after obtaining the decree of mutual consent, petitioner shall file an appropriate petition before this Court for the quashing of the FIR in question and that the respondent no.2 shall cooperate for the same as well as the criminal miscellaneous petition Main No.4630/2014 titled as ‘Sourendra Nath Ghosh & Ors. vs. State & Ors.’ It is also agreed that both the parties shall request this Court to quash the FIR in question in view of the settlement as arrived between the parties. It is also agreed that petitioner shall pay the remaining sum of Rs. 60,000/- in the form of pay-order/DD to respondent no.2 at the time of recording of the statement of the respondent no.2 in Crl.M.C. No. 4630/2014. It is also agreed that after the quashing of the FIR in question, the respondent no.2 shall withdraw her petition under the D.V. Act against petitioner from the concerned Court. It is further agreed that if either party acquires any movable or immovable property(s) then the other party shall have no right, title or interest in respect of the same. It is also agreed that the after the receipt of the total amount of Rs. 2 Lacs by respondent no.2, the respondent no.2 shall have no right to claim anything against petitioner except the furniture, which is to be lifted by respondent no.2, as per the order of the Court, and which are lying at 251, Nilgiri Apartments, Alaknanda, New Delhi-110019. It is also agreed that both the parties are withdrawing unequivocally, each and every allegation leveled at each other in view of the settlement. It is also agreed that the original FDR being FD No. KCC/01/30358 in the name of respondent no.2 is misplaced and is now not traceable. The respondent no.2 shall apply for a duplicate of the said FD to the concerned Bank and petitioner and Sh. S.N.Ghosh shall cooperate/assist respondent no.2 in this regard as and when required. It is also agreed that respondent no.2 has already obtained the status of the FDR from the Bank which shows its continuance in her name only. It is also agreed that there is one joint savings Bank account bearing no. 045700101010428 in the name of petitioner and respondent no.2 in the Corporation Bank, Tharpakna branch at Ranchi and Sh. S. N. Ghosh has agreed to withdraw his name from the said Bank account of the Corporation Bank, Tharpakna branch at Ranchi. It is also agreed that whatever is the balance in the saving account shall be returned to Sh. S. N. Ghosh and that thereafter, respondent no.2 shall operate the above said account individually. It is also agreed that after the removal of the name of Sh. S. N. Ghosh from the said account in the Corporation Bank, Tharpakna branch at Ranchi, respondent no.2 may individually operate the said account. It is also agreed that the respondent no.2 shall withdraw her name from the joint savings bank account bearing no.480102010867824, Union Bank of India her the name, so that the account may be operated by petitioner and Mandira Ghosh (either or survivor) and that a letter to that effect shall be signed by all the holders. It is also agreed that respondent no.2 shall not claim anything from the National Saving Certificates (NSC) purchased out of the money of Sh. S. N. Ghosh bearing no.06 EF 101439 to 101444 (six NSC). It is also agreed that the respondent no.2 shall not show any objection if the said amount with interest is realized by Mandira Ghosh being the second holder from the Postal Authority. It is also agreed that the respondent no.2 shall discharge her obligation on the said NSCs by putting her signature thereon on all the NSCs at the time of payment of first installment and that respondent no.2 shall extend cooperation in getting the matured amount by the second holder. It is also agreed that the petitioner, Sh. S. N. Ghosh and Mandira Ghosh shall not claim any amount in respect of the FDR being FD No.KCC/01/30358 in the name of respondent no.2 which is to be realized by respondent no.2 alone. It is also agreed that the respondent no.2 shall open a Demat account in her own name or in the name of her father, Sh. Chittaranjan Das and a communication to this effect immediately on opening of Demat account to be sent to petitioner no.1 and the shares which were transferred by respondent no.2 to Sh. S. N. Ghosh and are now in his possession, will be transferred in the name of the respondent no.2 on getting the communication of opening Demat account as early as possible but not later than the period of 6 months from the date of present settlement. The particulars of the shares are as laid out in the mediation report. It is further agreed that the parties and their respective families shall not file any case either civil or criminal against each other after obtaining the aforesaid all the amount by the respondent no.2 and after the present settlement except the case under Section 13B(1) & 13B(2) of the H.M.A. and the quashing proceedings as agreed above. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the foresaid settlement. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioner 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 petitioner and has settled all the disputes with him. 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.
  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 noncompoundable 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 and FIR No.313/2013 dated 22.07.2013, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Kalkaji and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioner.
  15. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
  16. Application Crl.M.A. No. 18769/2015 is also disposed of.

Hubby asked money which was illegal so dowry case! Now I took money which is perfect so case quashed!

Your honour, my husband asked me 50 thousands. That’s dowry ! that’s illegal, so I went and filed a Dowry case on him, his mother, his father and …. they were all running around police and courts… But your honour, in due course, I took 50 thousands from him. Since this 50 thousands that I took is perfectly legal, I humbly request you to quash the earlier case on “that” 50 thousands and secure the ends of justice

Amen !

Excerpts :

“….The petitioner no.1 was a drunker and smack consumer. When he comes home in the evening, he used to tease, beat up and harass the complainant. The petitioner no.1 used to ask the complainant to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her parents otherwise, ……”

“…settled their respective claims against each other amicably w.r.t. stridhan, maintenance, permanent alimony for a total sum of Rs. 50,000/- through counseling. The said amount has been paid by the petitioner no.1 ….”


*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+   CRL.M.C. 4616/2015 & Crl.M.A. No. 16551/2015

Date of Decision : April 07th, 2016

MUKESH & ORS                                        ….. Petitioner
Through:    Mr. Javed Ashraf Khan, Advocate

versus

STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)               ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State with Inspector
Ajay Sharma, Police Station
Mahendra Park, Delhi

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, Mukesh, Smt. Om Wati and Mange Ram for quashing of FIR No.153/2010 dated 22.06.2010, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Mahindra Park on the basis of the settlement arrived at between petitioner no.1 and respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Sonu.
  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 Inspector Ajay Sharma.

  3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 was solemnized on 08.05.2009 as per Hindu rites and customs. The petitioner no.1 was a drunker and smack consumer. When he comes home in the evening, he used to tease, beat up and harass the complainant. The petitioner no.1 used to ask the complainant to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her parents otherwise, he will not let her stay in the matrimonial home. The mother-in-law of the complainant also used to tease and harass the complainant for bringing less dowry. The father-in-law of the complainant also used to cause harassment to her by asking for dowry. The respondent no.2/complainant filed a complaint before the CAW Cell against the petitioners which resulted into the registration of the FIR in question. Later on, the parties arrived 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 settlement, the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 settled their respective claims against each other amicably w.r.t. stridhan, maintenance, permanent alimony for a total sum of Rs. 50,000/- through counseling. The said amount has been paid by the petitioner no.1 on two occasions i.e. on recording of the statement of first and second motion for divorce by mutual consent. The respondent no.2 also agreed to withdraw her petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and also the petition under Section 18 (1) and 18 (2) H.A.M.A. There are no litigations pending between the parties and the parties agreed to not file any case etc. against each other in future after the settlement. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement. 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. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

  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.

  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. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

14. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.153/2010 dated 22.06.2010, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Mahindra Park and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.

  1. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
  • The application Crl.M.A. No. 16551/2015 is also disposed of.

  • (P.S.TEJI)

    JUDGE

    APRIL 07, 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