AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Crl.M.A. No.17447/2020
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Crl.M.C. No. 2468/2020
Vide the present petition, the petitioners No.1 to 6, seek quashing of the FIR No. 834/2019, Police Station Bindapur registered under Sections 406/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 submitting inter alia to the effect that a settlement has since been arrived at between the parties and the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 has also been dissolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13 B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide decree dated 30.7.2020 in HMA No. 360/2020 of the Court of the Principal Judge Family Courts, Dwarka Courts (copy of which is placed on record as Annexure-3). and that no useful purpose would be served by the continuation of the said FIR.
The Investigating Officer of the case is present and has identified the petitioners present in Court today through Video Conferencing as being the six accused arrayed in the FIR No. 834/2019, Police Station Bindapur registered under Sections 406/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 and the respondent No.2 present in the Court today through Video Conferencing as being the complainant thereof.
The respondent No.2 in her deposition on oath in replies to specific Court queries, has affirmed the factum of a settlement arrived at between her and the petitioner No.1 vide a Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.12.2019 and has affirmed the factum of the divorce between her and the petitioner No.1 vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13 B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide decree dated 30.7.2020 in HMA No. 360/2020 of the Court of the Principal Judge Family Courts (South-West), Dwarka Courts. She further states that in term of the settlement she has received a total settled sum of Rs.11,00,000/- from the petitioners and that there are now no claims of hers left against the petitioners and thus she does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR in question nor does she want them to be punished in relation thereto.
The respondent No.2 is apparently educated and has done her Masters in Physiotherapy and states that she has understood the implications of her statement and does not want to think again.
On behalf of the State, there is no opposition to the prayer made by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR in question in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the deposition made by the respondent No.2.
In view of the deposition of the respondent No.2 qua which there appears no reason to disbelieve that she has made statement voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the FIR has apparently emanated due to a matrimonial discord which has since been resolved vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13 B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide decree dated 30.7.2020 in HMA No. 360/2020 of the Court of the Principal Judge Family Courts (South-West), Dwarka Courts and the proof having been testified by her, it is considered appropriate to put a quietus to the litigation between the parties qua the FIR in question and for the maintenance of peace and harmony between them in view of the observations in the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, to the effect : -
“58... No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.” [Refer to B.S. Joshi, (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant, (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma, (2008) 16 SCC 1.] and in view of the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr. (2013) 4 SCC 58, to the effect :-
“15.In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.
16.There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. They institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the Court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed..." (emphasis supplied),
FIR No. 834/2019, Police Station Bindapur registered under Sections 406/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are thus quashed against the petitioners.
The petition is disposed of.