Tag Archives: settlement means moolah !!

Hon HC is very concerned that wife’s getting ONLY 84 LAKHS from 498a quash & settlement. ONLY 84 lakhs !

Hon HC says it repeatedly checked with the wife before she agreed to take ONLY 84 lakhs …… before quasing 498a etc cocktail !!

By the way, she filed a 498a cocktail to get the settlement done !!


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.1260 OF 2017
1. Nipul Chandravadan Panchal,
Age 40 years, Occ: Architect

2. Mrs. Neela Chandravadan Panchal,
Age 63 years, Occ: Housewife

3. Chandravadan Panchal,
Age 70 years, Occ: No

Residing at 302, Mary Anne Heights, 3rd Road, GPS III, Opp: Cafe-Coffee Day,
Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055. …. Petitioners

– Versus –

1. The State of Maharashtra

2. Mrs. Vaishali Nipul Panchal,
Age 36 years, Occ: Service,
R/a Room No.7, Building No.1,
Kangra Bhavan, 232, Dr. Anny
Besent Road, Opp: Potdaar
Hospital, Warli, Mumbai. …. Respondents
Mr. P.R. Yadav i/by Ms Priyanka Dubey for the Petitioners.
Dr. F.R. Shaikh, APP, for the Respondent-State.
Mr. D.V. Saroj for Respondent No.2.
CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ.

DATE : APRIL 07, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per Shri S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) :

 

  1. 1. Rule. The respondents waive service. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal.
  2. 2. The complainant Vaishali is present in Court. She admits that on 4-6-2015 her statement was recorded by the concerned police station, namely, Vakola Police Station, Mumbai and an FIR was registered. The FIR No.254/2015 alleges offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 341, 504, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
  3. 3. A request is made by the accused including the husband of the respondent/original complainant to quash this FIR.
  4. 4. The only contention raised in support of this petition is that, this is a fall out of a matrimonial dispute. That discord and dispute led to the husband approaching the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai with a petition seeking divorce. That petition bearing No.A-1425 of 2015 was later on sought to be converted into a petition and a joint one. The relief was altered to that of a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
  5. 5. Our attention has been invited to the Consent Terms tendered in the Family Court and the altered Consent Terms. Pages 77 to 84 of the paper-book have been perused by us carefully. One of the clauses in the Consent Terms postulates that the sum deposited in the account and mentioned in the Terms cannot be withdrawn by the complainant/wife unless she agrees to quashing of this criminal proceedings.
  6. 6. The nature of this settlement and which prima facie appears to us to be one sided, compelled us to call upon the Advocate appearing for the second respondent/complainant to request her to remain present.http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick.
  7. 7. She has remained present and has tendered an affidavit confirming the above arrangement.
  8. 8. She says that she is completely familiar and can speak and equally read and write in English language. She has perused the affidavit. That is drafted as per her instructions and reflects the position correctly.
  9. 9. Though she is not aware of the legal proceedings and provisions, we have sufficiently clarified to her that the affidavit being tendered on record and the prosecution being quashed on the ground that it is purely a private one arising out of a strained matrimonial relationship, then, she would have waived her rights which she has as wife and stated to be voluntarily. We called upon her and repeatedly, whether this arrangement and as reflected in the affidavit is arrived at willingly and her consent is free and unequivocal.
  10. 10. This query was raised by us especially because there are rights of a child, a minor son at the relevant time aged eight years. The custody of this minor son is handed over to the wife. The mother is now going to fend for herself in a City like Mumbai with only a sum of Rs.84 lakhs, that too deposited in the Bank account and as permanent alimony. The same is full and final settlement for all claims of the wife/mother including for permanent alimony. No separate amounts are provided for the child as well.
  11. 11. Upon our limited questioning, she says that she wants an end to all these proceedings and desires to resume her life with her son. She wants nothing more from the in-laws or the husband.
  12. 12. Once she repeatedly says that she is agreeable to the criminal prosecution being quashed and with the above understanding as well, then, we have no alternative but to quash this criminal prosecution which is a fall out of a dispute between the husband and wife, a direct impact after the complaint for domestic violence was lodged, the husband’s petition for Divorce. Then going by this settlement and which is confirmed, we allow the petition. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No order as to costs.
  13. 13. The consequence being not only the FIR is quashed but even the criminal case and charge-sheet which is filed in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai.http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick.
  14. 14. However, since the complainant/wife says that in the interest of her child as also on account of her lack of faith, trust and love for the husband, the criminal prosecution should be quashed and she is ready for the same, in the event the Family Court’s jurisdiction under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 r/w Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is invoked for variation or modification of the Terms and particularly the clause for payment, our order passed today quashing the criminal prosecution shall not be an impediment for the Family Court to exercise its jurisdiction and in accordance with law. Clarifying thus, the petition is allowed.

 

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

(S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, 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


Advertisements

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.]

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

1 plot @ Delhi, 1 at Merrut & a shop to “settle” matri case, where IN LAW ARRESTED & home allegedly cleaned of valuables !

A sad tale of how property and money is continually taken away from men in the name of matrimonial “settlement”.

It’s an open secret that men are dragged to courts and milked of money. they are defamed and dragged into criminal cases

In this case it is alleged that when the FIL was locked up the house was also “cleaned” of all valuables and finally it ends up a “settlement”

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL.M.C. 2586/2016 & Crl.M.A. No. 11093/2016

Date of Decision: September 2nd, 2016

MAMTA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr.A.K.Padhy, Advocate.

versus

STATE & MANGAT RAM ….. Respondents
Through: Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan, APP.
Mr.D.K.Singh and Mr.Pankaj Chauhan, Advocates for R-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. Mamta for quashing of FIR No. 337/2014 dated 29.05.2014, under Section 380 IPC registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar on the basis of Mediation report of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkadooma Courts, Delhi in view of the settlement arrived at between petitioner and respondent no.2, namely, Mr. Mangat Ram along with Sh. Vijay Kumar on 24.01.2015.
  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 SI P.S. Rawat.
  3. The factual matrix of the present case is on the allegation that that the complainant was falsely implicated and held in custody in a FIR by his daughter-in-law. Upon being released from police custody, the complainant requested SHO Gandhi Nagar to send two constables to assist him to his house. Upon reaching his house, the complainant saw that his house lay unlocked and all the articles as listed in his statement to the Police were missing from his house. Thereafter, the police was informed and a complaint was lodged following which, the FIR in question was registered against the accused person. Later, 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. It is agreed that respondent no.2’s son, Sh. Vijay Kumar, shall transfer (a) the plot bearing no.169, Pocket-D, sector 4-C, Shatabadi Nagar, Meerut (UP); (b) plot bearing no.136, Pocket-D, sector 4-C, Shatabadi Nagar, Meerut (UP) and (c) Shop no. X/916, Chand Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi in favour of the petitioner as well as two daughters namely Disha and Prachi, towards full and final settlement of all the claims arising out of the marriage which includes maintenance (past, present and future) of the petitioner as well of the children, permanent alimony, istridhan etc. It is agreed that Sh. Vijay Kumar shall handover the title documents in respect of shop no. X/916, Chand Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi in favour of the petitioner and minor daughters at the time of quashing of the FIR in question before this court, which shall be filed by the concerned party within 15 days after passing of the order of second motion and the concerned party shall co-operate at the time of such quashing. It is further agreed that the petitioner shall be entitled to receive the rent pertaining to shop no. X/916, Chand Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi w.e.f. February, 2015 and Sh. Vijay Kumar shall give his no objection, if need arises. It is agreed that the parties shall withdraw the cases filed by them against each other within 15 days after recording of their statements in first motion petition. It is agreed that the custody of the minor daughters shall remain with the petitioner and Sh. Vijay Kumar shall not have any visitation rights and he shall not claim their custody at any point of time. It is agreed that after receipt of the above said properties, the petitioner shall be left with no dispute/claim against Sh. Vijay Kumar or any of his family members in future. It is agreed that if any case/complaint is pending between the parties arising out of their marriage, the same shall be withdrawn by the concerned party. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of his affidavit dated 18.07.2016 supporting this petition. In the affidavit, he has stated that he 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 he stated that he has entered into a compromise with the petitioner and has settled all the disputes with her. He further stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick
  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.  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 and stated that the matter has been settled out of his 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 that the offence under Section 380 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. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of statement made by the respondent no.2, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.
  12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 337/2014 dated 29.05.2014, under Section 380 IPC registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar registered and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioner.
  13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
  14. Application Crl.M.A. No. 11093/2016 is also disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE

SEPTEMBER 02, 2016/dd

 
=========== the case between the husband and wife is given below ==========

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL.M.C. 2542/2016

Date of Decision: September 1st, 2016

VIJAY KUMAR & ORS.                           ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr.D.K.Singh and Mr.Pankaj Chauhan, Advocates.

versus

STATE & ORS.                                ….. Respondents
Through: Mr.Izhar Ahmad, APP.
Mr.A.K.Padhy, Advocate for R-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 petitioners, namely, Sh. Vijay Kumar and Sh. Mangat Ram for quashing of FIR No.250/2014 dated 18.04.2014, under Sections 498- A/307/34 IPC registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar on the basis of the Mediation Report of the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi executed between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no.2, namely, Smt. Mamta on 24.01.2015.
  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 no.1 and respondent no.2 on 08.05.1998 according to Hindu rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, two female children were born. It is the case of the complainant that the accused persons used to harass and beat her. The accused persons were not happy with the complainant as she gave birth to two daughters and not sons. Allegedly, the accused persons poured kerosene oil upon the complainant and tried to set her ablaze. Thereafter, the complainant got lodged the complaint following which the FIR in question was registered against the petitioners. During the pendency of the proceedings, the matter was settled between the accused persons and 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 settlement, it is agreed that the parties shall dissolve their marriage by way of mutual consent. It is agreed that petitioner no.1 shall transfer (a) the plot bearing no.169, Pocket-D, sector 4-C, Shatabadi Nagar, Meerut (UP); (b) plot bearing no.136, Pocket-D, sector 4-C, Shatabadi Nagar, Meerut (UP) and (c) Shop no. X/916, Chand Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi in favour of respondent no.2 as well as two daughters namely Disha and Prachi, towards full and final settlement of all the claims arising out of the marriage which includes maintenance (past, present and future) of respondent no.2 as well of the children, permanent alimony, istridhan etc. It is agreed that petitioner no.1 shall handover the title documents in respect of shop no. X/916, Chand Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi in favour of respondent no.2 and minor daughters at the time of quashing of the FIR in question before this court, which shall be filed by the concerned party within 15 days after passing of the order of second motion and the concerned party shall co-operate at the time of such quashing. It is further agreed that respondent no.2 shall be entitled to receive the rent pertaining to shop no. X/916, Chand Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi w.e.f. February, 2015 and petitioner no.1 shall give his no objection, if need arises. It is agreed that the parties shall withdraw the cases filed by them against each other within 15 days after recording of their statements in first motion petition. It is agreed that the custody of the minor daughters shall remain with respondent no.2 and petitioner no.1 shall not any visitation right and he shall not claim their custody at any point of time. It is agreed that after receipt of the above said properties, respondent no.2 shall be left with no dispute/claim against petitioner no.1 or any of his family members in future. It is agreed that if any case/complaint is pending between the parties arising out of their marriage, the same shall be withdrawn by the concerned party. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 14.07.2016 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 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 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 offences under Sections 498A/307 IPC are non-compoundable offences, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR under these sections, 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. In the present case, apart from offence under Section 498A IPC, it is also alleged against the petitioners that they also committed the offence under Section 307 IPC. The complainant in her statement made to the police had alleged that kerosene oil was poured on her and the accused persons tried to set her ablaze. Apparently, there is no bodily injury on the person of the complainant. In the present case, the penal Section 307 IPC has been added on the basis of circumstances and not on the basis of any grievous bodily injury. As per the ratio of judgment in the case of Narinder Singh (supra), while accepting the compromise in cases under Section 307 IPC, the High Court should go by the nature of injury sustained, portion of bodies where the injuries were inflicted and the nature of weapons used. If on the basis of circumstances, if the High Court is of the opinion that provisions of Section 307 IPC were unnecessary included, the Court can accept the settlement between the parties.

  13. In view of the law laid down in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) and the fact that no bodily injury was sustained by the complainant and section 307 IPC was added in the present case only on the basis of circumstances and not on the basis of any bodily injury, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to accept the settlement between the parties.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.250/2014 dated 18.04.2014, under Sections 498-A/307/34 IPC registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.

  17. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 01, 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


SETTLEMENTS daily !! Marriage WITHOUT kids. Madras HC Quash for 8 lakhs. Such women can remarry YOU

* Vaidegi got married to Jegadish on 27.01.2010 and they have no issues through the wedlock.
* Vaidegi lodged a police complaint against Jegadish, based on which, a case in Crime No.5 of 2014 was registered
* Police has filed a final report in C.C.No.1038 of 2015 before the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai
* On complaint by Vaidegi, criminal case in # 805 of 2014 was registered against Santhapriya & Sankar, in-laws of Vaidegi

* …..Now it appears that the parties have arrived at a compromise….. !!

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 15.09.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

Crl.OP.Nos.7836, 22996 and 23062 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015

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

Crl.O.P.No.7836 of 2015

1.Jagadish
2.Arumugam
3.Mrs.Chandra
4.Mrs.Priya
5.Sankar .. Petitioners

Vs

1.J.Vaidegi
2.The Protection Officer,
District Social Welfare Office,
District Collector’s Office Complex,
Singaravelar Maligai, 8th Floor,
Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001. .. Respondents

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

Crl.O.P.No.22996 of 2015

1.Mrs.Santhapriya
2.Sankar .. Petitioners
vs
1.The State,
Rep. By Inspector of Police,
W-6, AWPS, Secretariat Colony,
Chennai.

2.J.Vaidegi .. Respondents

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

Crl.O.P.No.23062 of 2015

Jagadish .. Petitioner

vs

1.The State,
Rep. By Inspector of Police,
W-6, AWPS, Secretariat Colony,
Chennai.

2.J.Vaidegi .. Respondents.

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

Prayer: Criminal Original petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.Nos.119, 1281 and 1038 of 2015 pending trial on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.T.C.S.Raja Chockalingam
For Respondents : Mr.C.Eamlia, Additional Public Prosecutor
G.M.Sankar for Defacto complainant

COMMON ORDER

These petitions are filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.Nos.119, 1281 and 1038 of 2015 respectively on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred by their name.

3. Vaidegi got married to Jegadish on 27.01.2010 and they have no issues through the wedlock. It appears that their marriage ran into rough weather and got estranged. Vaidegi lodged a police complaint against Jegadish, based on which, a case in Crime No.5 of 2014 was registered and after completing the investigation the respondent police has filed a final report in C.C.No.1038 of 2015 before the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. Challenging which, Jegadish has filed Crl.O.P.No.23062 of 2015. On the complaint lodged by Vaidegi, a criminal case in Crime No.805 of 2014 was registered against Santhapriya and Sankar, who are the in-laws of Vaidegi and after completing the investigation, the respondent police has filed a final report in C.C.No.1281 of 2015. Challenging which, Santhapriya and Sankar are before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.22996 of 2015. Vaidegi lodged a proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act in C.C.No.119 of 2015 against Jagadish and others. Challenging which, Jegadish and others are before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.7836 of 2015. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

4. Now it appears that the parties have arrived at a compromise. Vaidegi is present before this Court and she has filed an affidavit, wherein she has stated as follows:

2. I have received a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only)
i.e., one lakh at Mediation Centre and seven lakhs at Family Court,
from the petitioners’ brother vide D.D.No.979665 dated 02.09.2015 SBI
further I have got back my sridhana articles also from the petitioner
(Jagadish/Husband). Therefore, I have no claim in any manner from
the petitioner in future. I will not initiate any type of litigation
against the petitioners in future.

3. I submit that as the matrimonial dispute amicable settled by me
and the petitioner. I am giving my consent to allow this quash
petition.

4. It is therefore respectfully prayed that his Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to take note of the above facts and record the same and allow
this quash petition.

5. Earlier Tr.C.M.P.No.408 of 2015 has been filed by Jegadesh, in
which the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, Chennai.
Before the Mediation Centre, the parties appear to have entered into
settlement. The terms of which are as follows:

1.The petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees
eight Lakhs only) as a onetime settlement (permanent alimony) to the
respondent herein further the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the respondent by way of cash
before the Mediation Centre, today itself and the balance amount of
Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs only) will be paid to the
respondent at the time of giving her consent in O.P.No.3426/13 to
grant decree of divorce at the earliest or at the time of giving
evidence in the mutual divorce petition. There shall be no further
claim whatsoever on either side.

2.The respondent herein agrees to give her consent to quash the
proceeding in C.C.No.1038/2015 & C.C.No.1181/2015 and
D.V.C.No.119/2015 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore
Court (at present at Motre Merket Buildings) which initiated based on
for complaint.

3.The respondent herein undertakes to not to prefer any compliant or
case before any judicial body or form or Court against the petitioner
or his family members.

4.The petitioner hereby agreed to return all the articles which are
in his custody which belongs to the respondent herein.

5.Both parties should scrupulously adhere to the terms and
conditions.

In view of the above, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed and the proceedings in C.C.Nos.119, 1281 and 1038 of 2015 respectively on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai are hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

15.09.2015

vsm

P.N.PRAKASH, J.

vsm To V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai -8.

Crl.OP.Nos.7836, 22996 and 23062 of 2015 15.09.2015

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