NEERU DEVI AND OTHERS vs STATE AND OTHERS
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 16.05.2024
+ W.P.(CRL) 1179/2024
NEERU DEVI AND OTHERS ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Siddharth Gupta, Mr. Gaurav Bisht, Mr. Rajat Nagar and Mr. Apun Sisodia, Advs. with petitioner no. 1 in person.
versus
STATE AND OTHERS ….. Respondents
Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC for State with Mr. Sagar Mehlawat and Mr. Abhijeet Kukmar, Advs.
SI M.L. Meena, P.S.: Sagarpur.
Mr. F. Alam, Adv. for R-2 with R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
% J U D G M E N T
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J (ORAL)
1. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 0178/2018, under Sections 308/324/34 IPC, registered at PS: Sagarpur and proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. In brief, as per the case of the petitioners, marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 08.05.2004. Two male children were born out of the wedlock. Due to temperamental differences, respondent No. 2 and petitioner No. 1 started living separately. An FIR No. 0499/2018 under Section 498A IPC was lodged on complaint of petitioner No.1 against respondent No. 2 at P.S. Sagarpur due to matrimonial differences.
The aforesaid FIR No. 0499/2018 preferred by Petitioner No.1(wife) against Respondent No. 2 (Husband) under Sections 498A IPC, registered at P.S. Sagarpur has been separately quashed today vide order dated 16.05.2024 in W.P.(CRL) 1548/2024. Another FIR No. 0155/2022 also preferred by Petitioner No. 1 (Wife) against Respondent No. 2 (Husband) under Sections 323/341 IPC, registered at P.S. Sagarpur is also stated to have been separately quashed by Honble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan vide order dated 16.05.2024 in W.P.(CRL.) 1547/2024.
3. Present FIR No. 0178/2018 under Sections 308/324/34 IPC was registered on 06.06.2018 at instance of respondent No. 2 (husband) in respect of an incident dated 25.05.2018 whereby Petitioner No. 1 alongwith her relatives is alleged to have assaulted Respondent No. 2.
Learned counsel for petitioner prays for quashing of FIR since disputes are stated to have been amicably settled between the parties in terms of settlement Deed dated 12.12.2023.
4. Learned APP for the State submits that in view of amicable settlement between the parties, she has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
5. Petitioners in the present case seek to invoke the powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The same is to be used to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court. In which cases, the power to quash the criminal proceedings or the complaint or FIR may be used when the offender as well as victim have settled their dispute, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no generalised list or categories can be prescribed. However, the Court is required to give due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and consider the impact on the society.
6. It may also be observed that heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot be quashed despite settlement. However, distinguished from serious offences, minor incidents or offences, which dont affect the society at large or are personal in nature, stand on a different footing, so far as exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned. The High Court also is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. It may also be assessed, if in view of compromise between the parties, the possibility of conviction in such a case is remote and whether continuation of proceedings would cause grave oppression and prejudice the accused.
7. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 are present in Court and have been identified by SI M.L. Meena, P.S.: Sagarpur. Presence of petitioners No.2 & 3 is exempted. I have interacted with the parties and they confirm that the matter has been amicably settled between them without any threat, pressure or coercion. Respondent No.2 also states that nothing remains to be further adjudicated upon between the parties and he has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.
8. Parties being closely related to each other intend to put quietus to the proceedings arising out of matrimonial proceedings. The settlement shall promote harmony between the parties and permit them to move forward in life. Also the chances of conviction are bleak in view of amicable settlement between the parties.
Considering the facts and circumstances, since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the case pending. It would be nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. Consequently, FIR No. 0178/2018, under Sections 308/324/34 IPC, registered at PS: Sagarpur and proceedings emanating therefrom stand quashed.
Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded to learned Trial Court for information.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
MAY 16, 2024/akc
W.P.(CRL) 1179/2024 Page 4 of 4