Category Archives: pay money to quash

Fellow marries 3rd time & 3rd wife files 498 etc on him ! Rajesh Gupta @ Pappu vs The State (Nct Of Delhi)

Just 2 lines explain this case  !! 🙂 🙂

“….marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 on 10.03.2008. The complainant was the third wife of the petitioner. ….”
“….  It is also agreed that petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 3.4 Lacs (‘Settlement Amount’) to respondent no.2 in full and final settlement towards all her claims arising out of the marriage between them including maintenance (past, present and future), permanent alimony, istridhan and dowry articles. …”

If marriage is a gamble, what’s THIRD marriage ??

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+   CRL.M.C. 1912/2016

Date of Decision: July 25th, 2016

RAJESH GUPTA @ PAPPU                        ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr.Roshan Saini, Advocate

versus

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR              ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. G.M. Farooqui, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State with Sub- Inspector Dharmender Kumar,
Police Station Roop Nagar, Delhi
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 petitioner, namely, Sh. Rajesh Gupta @ Pappu for quashing of FIR No.138/2011 dated 23.09.2011, under Sections 498-A/406 IPC registered at Police Station Roop Nagar on the basis of the mediation report of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and respondent no.2, namely, Ms. Meenu on 03.09.2015.
  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 was solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 on 10.03.2008. The complainant was the third wife of the petitioner. The in-laws of the complainant used to torture her physically and mentally. Despite several attempts, the complainant’s complaint was not lodged by the Police at Mundawar Police Station and instead, the police personnel would call the in-laws of the complainant to take away the complainant back to their home. The complainant was given several life threats by her in-laws and her father was tortured by her in-laws with new demands for one thing or the other. Thereafter, the complainant got lodged the complaint following which the FIR in question was registered against the petitioner. During the pendency of the proceedings, the matter was settled between the accused person and the respondent no.2.http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick
  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 between the parties that the petitioner and respondent no.2 shall take divorce by way of mutual consent. It is also agreed that petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 3.4 Lacs (‘Settlement Amount’) to respondent no.2 in full and final settlement towards all her claims arising out of the marriage between them including maintenance (past, present and future), permanent alimony, istridhan and dowry articles. It is agreed that the petitioner shall pay the above mentioned amount in the manner enunciated in the terms of the mediation report. It is agreed that out of the Settlement Amount, Rs.1.4 Lacs shall be paid at the time of quashing of the FIR in question before this Court. It is also agreed that the petition for quashing the FIR in question shall be filed by the petitioner and respondent no.2 shall cooperate with the petitioner for the same, as and when necessary, by filing an affidavit for the same. It is also agreed that the quashing petition shall be filed within 1 month from the date of disposal of petition under Section 13 (B) (2) of H.M.A. It is also agreed that the respondent no.2 shall withdraw the case under Section 12 of D.V. Act along with execution petition after disposal of the petition under Section 13(B)(1) of HMA. It is also agreed that the petitioner shall withdraw his divorce petition titled “Rajesh Gupta vs. Meenu Gupta” bearing No. H.M.A. No. 1/15, pending before the Court of Sh. D.S. Punia, Ld. Principal Judge (Central), Family Court, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within 15 days from today. It is also agreed that the parties shall not file any further cases or complaints, in future, against each other or each other’s families. It is also agreed that the parties shall not interfere in each other’s lives after the settlement. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 16.05.2016 supporting this petition. In the affidavit, she 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 petitioner survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of 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 tranquility 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.http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick
  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.138/2011 dated 23.09.2011, under Sections 498-A/406 IPC registered at Police Station Roop Nagar and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioner.
  15. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
    (P.S.TEJI)
    JUDGE
    JULY 25, 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

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


When a 498a quash order says ‘… financial claims were settled …’ How many lakhs / crores is that ??

There are 1000s of 498a cases where the woman takes money and happily agrees to quash. Generally the financial details are mentioned for the safety of both parties. However, we also see orders where even the amount is not mentioned !! Was it too big ? one wonders !!

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY 2013/12TH POUSHA 1934

Crl.MC.No. 3438 of 2012 ()

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

  1. AJAY.G.R.
    S/O.LATE RAJAKUMAR, T.C. 1593-1, THIRUMALA P.O.
    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
  2. GEETHA, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.LATE RAJAKUMAR, T.C.1593-1,
    THIRUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN

RESPONTENTS/COMPLAINANT:

  1. STATE OF KERALA
    REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
    HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682 031.
    ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.490/2011 OF
    POOJAPPURA POLICE STATION
    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT)
  • RINU, D/O.DR.V.JAYAPRAKASH,
    T.C. 13/731 (1), SIVAM, THARAPATHAM
    LANE, KUNNUKUZHY P.O., 695 004
    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

  • R2 BY ADV. SRI.KALLAMPALLY MANU
    BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.H.JASMINE

    THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
    02-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

    MNS

    Crl.MC.No. 3438 of 2012 ()

    APPENDIX

    PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

    ANNEXURE-I: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.490/2011 OF
    POOJAPPURA POLICE STATION.

    ANNEXURE-II: ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT/
    DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 25.05.2012.

    ANNEXURE-III: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BEFORE THE NOTARY
    PUBLIC BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

    RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:NIL

    //TRUE COPY//

    P.A TO JUDGE

    T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Criminal M.C.No.3438/2012
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2013

    O R D E R

    The main prayer is to quash proceedings in Crime No.490/2011 of Poojappura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. Annexure-I is the copy of the First Information Report. The offences involved are under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2. The de facto complainant is the wife of the first accused and the second accused is her mother-in-law. The de facto complainant filed a private complaint which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pursuant to which the crime has been registered.

    1. It is averred that the disputes have been settled with the intervention of the mediators and others. The parties have now decided to separate and get the marriage dissolved.
  • Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

  • The second respondent has filed an affidavit produced as Annexure-III herein along with Crl.M.Appln.No.62/2013. It reveals that the parties have filed a mutual divorce petition as O.P.No.1087/2011 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. In para.6, it is averred that the entire financial claims were settled and the second respondent has no objection in quashing the proceedings in the criminal case.

  • The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the parties have settled their disputes.http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

  • As the parties have settled the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners and the second respondent prayed for quashing the proceedings. They rely upon various Judgments of the Supreme Court, especially, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)] and Joshi v. State of Haryana [2003 (2) KLT 1062 (SC)].

  • The legal position declared therein is that even if the offences are non compoundable, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a fit case. Herein, criminal case arose only due to the private disputes between the parties. Therefore, in view of the subsequent developments, it is not necessary to proceed with the criminal case.

  • Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous case is allowed. Further proceedings in Crime No.490/2011 of Poojappura Police Station will stand quashed. No costs.

  • Sd/-

    (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms

    *****************************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 filed case sayin they asked 25 lakhs!! Now I’ve taken 45 lakhs so I’ll agree 2 quash! Del HC 498a, 406 quash

    a woman files 498a, 406 etc claiming husband and co demanded 25 lakhs. later she takes 45 lakhs as “settlement”. Then she agrees to quash as well !! this is the sick nature of these 498a etc cases !!


    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

    CRL.M.C. 441/2016 & Crl.M.A. No. 1845/2016
    Date of Decision : May 10th, 2016

    UMANG GOYAL                                     ….. Petitioner
    Through:    Mr. Sanjeev Shai, Advocate

    versus

    STATE AND ANR                                        ….. Respondent
    Through:             Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public
    Prosecutor for the State with Sub-Inspector Raj Kumar, CAW Cell/E.
    Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for respondent No. 2

    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 petitioner, namely, Sh. Umang Goel through his SPA Sh. Mahesh Chandra Agarwal for quashing of FIR No.360/2013 dated 16.08.2013, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Pandav Nagar on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding arrived at between petitioner no.1 through his SPA Sh. Mahesh Chandra Agarwal and respondent no.2, Smt. Sonia Rawat on 13.10.2015.
    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 in the FIR in question by her counsel.
    3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 was solemnized on 23.04.2009. The family of the husband of the complainant was not satisfied with the dowry and demanded Rs. 25 Lacs. The husband of the complainant along with his other family members used to daily beat and abuse the complainant. The complainant was forced to leave her job in Nov, 2009 and was put to menial house chores. They strategically extorted an amount of Rs. 9.5 Lakhs and jewellery worth Rs. 15 Lacs from the parents of the complainant while subjecting the complainant to physical and mental torture and thereby putting her into mental depression for which complainant has been seeking medical treatment since 02.03.2012. The respondent no.2/complainant lodged a complaint which resulted into the registration of the FIR in question against the petitioner. Subsequently, on 13.10.2015, during the pendency of the proceedings emanating from the FIR in question, the matter was amicably settled between the petitioner and respondent no.2.
    4. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the MOU, it has been agreed that the parties shall take divorce by way of mutual consent in which the petitioner shall be represented his SPA Sh. Mahesh Chandra Agarwal. It is also agreed that the schedule for seeking divorce through mutual consent shall be as enunciated in the terms of the MOU. It is also agreed that petitioner no.1 shall pay an amount of Rs. 45 Lakhs as full and final settlement of all her claims, if any, in the manner enunciated in the terms of the MOU. It is also agreed that the petitioner no.1 shall pay an amount of Rs. 15 Lakhs at the time of quashing the FIR in question before this Court to respondent no.2 after giving her no objection for quashing of FIR in question against the petitioners. It is also agreed that within two weeks from recording of the statement of the parties in the First motion, the respondent no.2 and the petitioners shall file the appropriate petition for the quashing of the FIR in question. It is also agreed that respondent no.2 shall cooperate with the petitioners in quashing of the FIR in question. It is also agreed that after the receipt of the said settlement amount, respondent no.2 shall have no claim, if any of any nature whatsoever including jewellery articles/stridhan valuables etc. or maintenance (past, present and future), against the petitioner no.1 or his family members. It is also agreed that petitioner no.1 or his family members shall have no claim whatsoever against respondent no.2 or her family members, friends, relatives etc. It is also agreed that the parties shall not communicate with each other or interfere in each other’s lives and that they both shall be free to live their private lives happily and peacefully. It is also agreed that the parties have no claims for alimony pendent lite or permanent or in any property/assets of either party whether joint, ancestral, HUF, self-acquired etc. and that no further claims can be made by any party against each other or properties of each other. It is also agreed that the parties shall not initiate any proceedings against each other or their family members in regard to the disputes arising out of the marriage of petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 in the future and that they shall withdraw all pending cases, if any, filed against each other unconditionally and forever. It is also agreed that all the orders passed shall not be given effect to or enforced in any Court of law. It is also agreed that all cases between the parties shall be dismissed as withdrawn/compromised by filing appropriate applications based on this MOU and that the steps in that regard shall be taken by the concerned party within 2 weeks of recording of statements of parties in the first motion. It is also agreed that parties shall cooperate with each other for and sign all relevant documents required. It is also agreed that all disputes between the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 and their families stand settled and that they shall raise no new claims against each other in the future after execution of this MOU. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 07.11.2015 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 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 agreed 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 tranquility 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 overburdened 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.360/2013 dated 16.08.2013, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Pandav Nagar and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioner.
    15. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
    16. Application Crl.M.A. No. 1845/2016 is also disposed of.

     

    (P.S.TEJI)

    JUDGE

    May 10, 2016

    dd

    Pay & quash. ALSO guarantee secrecy so that all sh!t will be under wraps !!

    Taking money to quash a 498a 406 case itself leads to a suspicion, that the woman was NOT serious about punishment but just wanted money, and used the police / IPC as a convenient tool !

    Now, IF you add a secrecy clause to the quash Judgement, that leads to further suspicion that the woman is planning her second attack !!!

    So, in this case, Not only is the man paying to quash, now a clause has been added to stop the flow of information !! for example , this quash says “…..It is also agreed that the parties shall not use, circulate or publicize any evidence or marriage photographs, CDs etc. against the others, which is in their possession which is to the detriment to the other and shall destroy them. It is also agreed that the parties shall not contact each other’s relatives, friends and colleagues of the other side in any manner whatsoever. It is also agreed that the parties shall not create any encumbrances which shall be detrimental to the other. …..” !!


    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
    CRL.M.C. 391/2016

    Date of Decision: May 10th, 2016

    JITENDER KUMAR & ORS ….. Petitioner
    Through: Mr. Rajendra Kumar Tiwari, Advocate.

    versus

    STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS ….. Respondent
    Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with Sub- Inspector Umed Singh, Police Station Mianwali Nagar, Delhi and Sub-Inspector Raman Pratap, Police Station CWS, Nanakpura.

    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 petitioner, namely, Smt. Jitender Kumar, Sh. Mahavir Singh, Smt. Laxmi, Sh. Narender Kumar and Ms. Pooja for quashing of FIR No.88/2008 dated 19.11.2008, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station C.W.C. Nanak Puri on the basis of mediation report in Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts in view of the settlement arrived at between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2, Smt. Poornima @ Sonia on 24.03.2014.
    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 in the FIR in question by SI Umedh Singh.
    3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage between petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 was solemnized on 23.04.2008. The family of the husband of the complainant was not satisfied with the dowry. All of the complainant’s jewellery was taken away by her mother-in-law including Rs. 24,000/- cash. The husband of the complainant along with his other family members used to beat and abuse the complainant on several occasions. They also used to humiliate the complainant and her father on the demand of Rs.15 Lakhs at various instances. The respondent no.2/complainant lodged a complaint which resulted into the registration of the FIR in question against the petitioners. Subsequently, on 24.03.2014, during the pendency of the proceedings of Section 12 of D.V. Act instituted by the petitioner against the respondent no.2, the matter was amicably settled between the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2.
    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 parties shall take divorce by way of mutual consent. It is agreed that the petitioner no.1 shall pay the total settlement amount of Rs. 6 Lacs towards as her past, present and future maintenance and permanent alimony and any other legal claims. It is also agreed petitioner no.1 shall pay Rs. 2 Lacs at the time of quashing of the FIR in question. It is agreed that petitioner no.1 has already handed over a DD bearing no. 000614 drawn on PMC Bank for a sum of Rs. 1 Lac to respondent no.2. It is also agreed that the first motion petition shall be filed on or before 21.04.2014 and the second motion petition for divorce by mutual consent shall be filed after six months of the allowing of the first motion petition and within two months thereafter. It is also agreed that petitioner no.1 shall withdraw his petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty which is pending before concerned Family Court, west, THC, Delhi on the 05.04.2014. It is also agreed that respondent no.2 shall withdraw the petition under Section 12 of D.V. Act and her petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. pending before concerned Family Court, West, THC, Delhi on 05.04.2014. It is also agreed that respondent no.2 shall withdraw the executions filed by her before concerned Family Court, West, THC, Delhi on their next dates of hearing i.e. 02.04.2014 and 16.04.2014 respectively. It is also agreed that both parties shall approach this Court for quashing of the FIR in question within the one month from the date of grant of decree of divorce and that respondent no.2 shall cooperate with petitioner no.1 and his family members. It is also agreed that after the decree of annulment is passed, respondent no.2 shall not have any right, title or interest in the property of petitioner no.1 or his ancestors. It is also agreed that the parties shall not retract from their respective statements failing which they shall make themselves liable for legal action as per law. It is also agreed that the parties shall not use, circulate or publicize any evidence or marriage photographs, CDs etc. against the others, which is in their possession which is to the detriment to the other and shall destroy them. It is also agreed that the parties shall not contact each other’s relatives, friends and colleagues of the other side in any manner whatsoever. It is also agreed that the parties shall not create any encumbrances which shall be detrimental to the other. It is also agreed that the parties shall not give any effect to the complaint, if any already filed and shall not file any complaint against the other in future in respect of the marriage between them subject to the conditions of the settlement being fulfilled. It is also agreed that the parties shall not interfere in the future in each other’s lives and that they shall not visit the workplace or residence of each other. It is also agreed that the parties shall not try to contact each other except through their lawyers and As per the convenience of the lawyers they can have a meeting in the chamber of lawyers in order to give effect to this settlement and bring the litigation to an end. It is also agreed that the parties shall not use the evidence, if any in their possession against the other party before any authority. It is also agreed that the parties shall appear before the Court to abide by the terms of and conditions set out in the agreement and not to dispute the same herein after in future. It is also agreed that the parties shall not make any claim of any nature against each other in respect of the present dispute. It is agreed that the parties shall appear before the Court of Ld. MM (Mahila Court)-02, West, THC, Delhi on 02.04.2014 and on subsequent dates As well as before the Court of Ms. Reena Singh Nag, Ld. Judge, Family Courts, West THC, Delhi on 05.04.2014 and on subsequent dates as well as this Court for quashing of the FIR in question to abide by the terms set out in this settlement. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 07.12.2015 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.
    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 agreed 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 tranquility 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 overburdened 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.88/2008 dated 19.11.2008, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station C.W.C. Nanak Puri and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.
    15. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

     

    (P.S.TEJI) JUDGE MAY 10, 2016 dd