Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2803 (DEL)

ROHIT TYAGI v. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)

2016-07-29

P.S.TEJI

body2016
JUDGMENT : P.S. TEJI, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Dr. Rohit Tyagi, Sh. Balesh Raj Tyagi, Smt. Suman Lata Tyagi, Sh. Subodh Tyagi and Smt. Sarita for quashing of FIR No. 49/2013 dated 28.02.2013, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Timarpur on the basis of the mediation report of the Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts at between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2, namely, Ms. Namrata Tyagi on 01.09.2015. 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 petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 on 27.04.2009. The dowry articles given in marriage, allegedly, seemed insufficient to the husband of the complainant and to her in-laws and that the in-laws of the complainant started to torture her. In the first week of March, 2010, the mother-in-law of the complainant forced the complainant to write her own suicide note. On 18th April 2010, the complainant suffered a miscarriage due to negligence and carelessness. In the year 2012, the complainant’s mother-in-law took away all the jewellery and personal belongings of the complainant and asked the complainant to leave the matrimonial house and not show her face to her unless she bring Rs. 2 Crore from her parental home. 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 the 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, the parties have agreed to take divorce by way of mutual consent. It is also agreed that 35 Lacs shall be paid by petitioner no. 1 to respondent no. 2 towards for past, present and future maintenance and alimony including the arrears of the maintenance awarded by the Court. It is agreed that the above stated amount shall be paid in the manner enunciated in the terms of the mediation report. Out of the said amount, Rs. 1 to respondent no. 2 towards for past, present and future maintenance and alimony including the arrears of the maintenance awarded by the Court. It is agreed that the above stated amount shall be paid in the manner enunciated in the terms of the mediation report. Out of the said amount, Rs. 11 Lacs shall be paid at the time of the quashing of the FIR in question. It is agreed that the quashing petition shall be filed before this Court within 15 days from the date of grant of decree of dissolution of marriage and that respondent no. 2 shall cooperate for the same. It is also agreed that respondent no. 2 shall withdraw the appeal no. 19/15 titled as “Namrata Tyagi vs. State of NCT of Delhi” pending in the Court of Sh. Dinesh Bhatt, Ld. ASJ (Central), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi on 17.09.2015. It is also agreed that the respondent no. 2 shall withdraw her petition under Domestic Violence Act and execution petition filed by her against the petitioner no. 1 on 17.09.2015. It is also agreed that respondent no. 2 shall also withdraw her petition under Section 9 of H.M.A and her petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 17.09.2015. It is also agreed that the parties shall not use social networking sites to malign each other. It is agreed that the parties shall not file any claim, petition or suit against each other in the future. Respondent No. 2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 12.05.2016 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 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. 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 questions 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. 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.