Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2807 (DEL)

MANDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF DELHI (NCT OF DELHI)

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, Sh. Mandeep Singh and Smt. Amarjeet Kaur for quashing of FIR No. 375/2014 dated 15.05.2014, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Khyala on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2, namely, Ms. Rajwant Kaur on 02.11.2015. 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 13.11.2011 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and a male child was born from this wedlock. The petitioners did not allowed the respondent no. 2 to go to her matrimonial house and even restrained her from taking her child with her anywhere. When the respondent no. 2 opposed the petitioners, they started torturing her and the petitioner no. 1 threatened to give her divorce. On 18.10.2013 petitioner no. 1 after again tortured her and kicked her out of the house on 19.10.2013. on 29.10.2013 respondent no. 2 along with her relatives, went to the house of petitioners to solve the matter but the petitioners started dictating their own term and refused to give her the child. Thereafter, the complainant got lodged a complaint following which, the FIR in question was registered against the petitioners. An amicable settlement was arrived at between the parties during the pendency of the matter. 4. Respondent No. 2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. It is agreed that the respondent no. 2 shall start living with the petitioners in their house which she admits to be registered in the name of petitioner no. 2, from the date of settlement. It is agreed that the respondent no. 2 shall not instigate the petitioners in future to sell the aforesaid house and shall withdraw all the cases against the petitioners. Respondent No. 2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 23.03.2016 supporting this petition. In the affidavit, she has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. 2 shall not instigate the petitioners in future to sell the aforesaid house and shall withdraw all the cases against the petitioners. Respondent No. 2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 23.03.2016 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 settlement 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 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. 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.