SH. RAJU AND ORS. Vs THE STATE GOVT OF N.C.T OF DELHI ANR. -Judgment by Delhi High Court
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 14/2023
SH. RAJU AND ORS. ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. L. K. Dixit and Mr. Yogesh Sharma, Advs.
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF N.C.T OF DELHI ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State with SI Vishvendra Singh, PS Mayur Vihar.
Mr. Ridam Tyagi, Adv. for R-2 along with R-2.
% Date of Decision: 4th January, 2023
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
J U D G M E N T
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J. (Oral)
CRL.M.A. 39/2023 (Exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.C. 14/2023
1. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 377/2018 registered at PS Mayur Vihar under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner no. 1 was married to respondent no. 2/complainant namely Ms. Ankita on 15th February, 2015. No child was born out of this wedlock. However, owing to temperamental differences both parties started residing separately since11th March, 2018. Subsequently, on 10.10.2018, F.I.R. No.377/2018 under section 498A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Mayur Vihar Ph-I, District East, Delhi was registered against the petitioners on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent no.2.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has sought to quash of the above-mentioned FIR on the ground that during the pendency of the divorce proceedings, respondent no. 2/complainant along with the petitioners have entered into a settlement agreement dated 6th June, 2022 at Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. As per the settlement, petitioner No.1 has agreed to pay Rs.6,20,000/- to respondent no. 2/complainant towards the full and final settlement of the entire dispute.
4. Pursuant to the said settlement, a mutual divorce petition was filed and a decree of divorce was granted vide order dated 4th November, 2022 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East District, Karkardooma, Delhi.
5. I have interacted with the complainant, who is present in Court and has duly identified by the Investigating Officer. Respondent No. 2 has stated that she has already been paid Rs.4,20,000/-. Remaining sum of Rs.2,00,000- has been received by way of a Demand Draft bearing No.387086 dated 3rd December, 2022 drawn on Punjab National Bank. She has stated she has resolved the disputes with the petitioners voluntarily without any fear, undue influence or coercion and further requests that FIR No. 377/2018 registered at PS Mayur Vihar under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and all other proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
6. The High Court is conferred with the power of control and superintendence over all courts subordinate to it. Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section482 Cr.P.C acknowledge the inherent powers of the High Courts. High Courts can exercise its inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. either to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, the exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The powers possessed by the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The powers under section 482 Cr.P.C are to be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection and very sparingly to render real and substantial justice to the parties. The High Court would exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C, where it finds that non-interference shall result in abuse of the process of the court or failure of justice, or where grave injustice is shown to have been caused and requires to be undone, or where the complaint does not make out any triable case against the petitioner.
7. The High Court in the exercise of its inherent powers can quash non-compoundable offences after considering the nature of the offence and the amicable settlement between the concerned parties. Hon�ble Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly quashed the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR, where the offender and victim have settled their dispute, particularly in the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominately civil favour including offences arising out of matrimony or family disputes as these disputes, are private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved the entire dispute.
8. Recently, the Supreme court in Jasmair Singh and Another vs. State of Haryana and Another (2022) 9 SCC 73 quashed the proceedings arising out of a matrimonial dispute on the ground that the parties have buried the hatchet and decided to give quietus to the proceedings which were lodged inter se.
9. Furthermore, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRL.M.C. No. 599/2021 tilted Rifakat Ali & Ors Vs. State & Anr.�decided on 26.02.2021 and in CRL.M.C. No. 2819/2022 titled Sh. Shailesh Deshwal vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. decided on 03.08.2022, following the settled principles enumerated above, have exercised their power under section 482 Cr.P.C to quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial cases, whereby parties have amicably arrived upon a genuine settlement.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the statement made by respondent no.2/ complainant, the case FIR No. 377/2018 registered at PS Mayur Vihar under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and all the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
11. The present petition stands disposed of.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J
JANUARY 4, 2023
Pallavi
Neutral Citation Number is�2023/DHC/000193
CRL.M.C. 14/2023 Page 1 of 5