Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1598 (DEL)

Vipin Suneja v. State of NCT Delhi

2022-08-01

ASHA MENON

body2022
ORDER 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of FIR No.290/2020 registered under Section 306 IPC at Police Station Fatehpur Beri, Delhi along with all other proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Pursuant to the last order, the respondent No.2 is present in person before this Court. The Court has interacted with him. He explains that the Settlement has been arrived at before the learned Family Court where the learned Family Judge had interacted with the children, who then expressed a desire to be with their father, who is the petitioner herein. The respondent No.2 also affirms that he too believes that it is in the interest of the children that they are with their father. He hopes that the relations between himself and the petitioner may improve over a period of time, but believes that this is the best way out. 3. Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, learned APP for the State has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Daxaben v. The State of Gujarat & Ors. , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 936 to contend that even if a Settlement has taken place, the Court lacked the jurisdiction to quash an FIR registered under Section 306 of IPC. Reliance has also been placed on a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Neelam Devi and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr. , rendered on 1 April, 2022, and the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. , (2019) 5 SCC 688 . 4. Mr.Pramod Kr.Dubey, learned senior counsel for respondents No.2 to 6, submits that the Supreme Court has not barred the quashing of cases under Section 306 IPC, and refers to para No.37 of Daxaben (supra) to submit that the High Court has inherent powers to quash the criminal proceedings where the facts and circumstances of the case required it to do so. 5. Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, learned counsel for the petitioner, also submits that the facts in Daxaben (supra) are different inasmuch as the wife of the deceased was kept out of the Settlement and the interest of the one, who was the victim of the crime, was ignored. 5. Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, learned counsel for the petitioner, also submits that the facts in Daxaben (supra) are different inasmuch as the wife of the deceased was kept out of the Settlement and the interest of the one, who was the victim of the crime, was ignored. Contrary to that fact situation, in the present case, the Settlement had been arrived at through the intervention of the Family Court, which considered the welfare of the children and also had dealt with the matter keeping in mind the serious allegations against the petitioner, as incorporated in the FIR in question being FIR No.290/2020. It is also emphasised that even as per the charge-sheet, in actual fact, no offence under Section 306 IPC was made out as there have been no allegations of past misdemeanours on the part of the petitioner, which could have prompted his wife to take her life. Rather, the sequence of events would show that the FIR was a result of an FIR that the petitioner had lodged against the respondents No.2 to 6 when they had taken away his children from him. 6. Both the counsel submit that the cited judgments have no bearing on the facts of this case. 7. This Court is in agreement with the learned counsel inasmuch as the Settlement has been worked out with the intervention of the Family Court. The respondent No.2, who is at an advanced stage of life as well as of frail health, is also assured that the children are going to the petitioner, their father, at a crucial age of 14 and 13 respectively, when parental guidance would be of immense importance. No doubt, healing will take time. 8. For the present, the fact situation being vastly different from that in Daxaben (supra) and there being no bar on the exercise of the inherent powers by the court in appropriate cases, this Court is of the considered view that the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, following the guidelines in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. , 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. , (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 998, the petition is allowed and the FIR No.290/2020 registered under Section 306 IPC at Police Station Fatehpur Beri, Delhi and all other proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 9. The petition stands disposed of. 10. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. , 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. , (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 998, the petition is allowed and the FIR No.290/2020 registered under Section 306 IPC at Police Station Fatehpur Beri, Delhi and all other proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 9. The petition stands disposed of. 10. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.