Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3153 (DEL)

Samar Choudhary v. State

2014-12-03

PRATIBHA RANI

body2014
JUDGMENT : 1. By way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. the petitioners seek quashing of FIR bearing No. 60/2012 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Mehrauli, Delhi and all the proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2/complainant was solemnized on 22.11.2007 at Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. It is stated in the petition that after the marriage the parties lived together as husband and wife and a male child was also born out of the said wedlock. It is mentioned in the petition that due to misunderstanding and temperamental differences between the Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, they could not live together and started living separately w.e.f. 18.08.2010. Thereafter, besides other cases i.e. petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA Act, application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr PC petition under Section 12 of DV Act, the respondent No. 2 lodged a criminal complaint against the Petitioners which resulted into registration of FIR in question. 3. It is also stated that during the pendency of proceedings, the parties have settled the dispute with the intervention of the mediators and their well wishes. Copy of the settlement deed has been placed on record as Annexure-P2. After the settlement, the Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 started living together happily as husband and wife. 4. Today Petitioner No. 1 as well as Respondent No. 2 are present in person. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the dispute has been resolved amicably by the parties and after the settlement, the Respondent No. 2 also started living with his husband i.e. Petitioner No. 1 and son happily. Learned counsel for the Petitioners prays that in the given circumstances, the FIR in question may be quashed. 6. Respondent No. 2 also confirms the factum of amicable settlement with the Petitioners. She submits that she has now started living together with her husband i.e. Petitioner No. 1 and son and that she has no grievance whatsoever left against the Petitioners. She further submits that she has No. objection if the FIR in question and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed. 7. She submits that she has now started living together with her husband i.e. Petitioner No. 1 and son and that she has no grievance whatsoever left against the Petitioners. She further submits that she has No. objection if the FIR in question and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed. 7. The FIR registered against the present Petitioners is for committing the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC. Offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is a non-compoundable offence. In the decision in the case of Gian Singh v State of Punjab & Anr. 2012 (9) SCALE 257 , the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court dealing with the issue of quashing of FIR has observed as under:- “57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts circumstances of each case and no gory can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Coon must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity. etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 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 proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim arid 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 questions is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 8. In view of the legal position laid down in Gian Singh’s case (Supra) and amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, I am of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against the Petitioners, which will only be an exercise in futile and wastage of precious time of the Court. 9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 60/2012 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Mehrauli, Delhi and all the proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.