AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The second respondent was married to the first petitioner on 21.02.2011 in accordance with the provisions of Special Marriage Act, 1954. On
23.02.2012, she lodged first information report (no.67/2012) with police station Hari Nagar alleging offences punishable under Section 498A, 34 IPC
against her husband (first petitioner), his brother (second petitioner), his mother (third petitioner)and his father (fourth petitioner). On conclusion of
investigation, police filed report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) on which cognizance was taken, the said matter
being pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate. Theparties, however, agreed to resolve the matter by entering into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU)-cum-compromise deed executed on 21.03.2016, the first petitioner being represented by his sister / special attorney Harvinder
Chander Takhi, in terms of which they were to approach, as per the timelines indicated, the appropriate forum for obtaining a decree of divor ce, they
also having agreed inter alia for the criminal case arising out of the aforementioned FIR to be sought to be quashed.
The petition, thus, has been moved before this court invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR
no.67/2012, under Sections 498A, 415, 420, 34 IPC of Police Station Hari Nagar.
The petition was initially filed by the first petitioner through his attorney, on the strength of special power of attorney dated 02.05.2016 executed and
attested at Warsaw (Poland). Later, on an application moved, the other petitioners were also added to the fray as co-petitioners. As per the status
report dated 14.09.2018 (filed on 26.10.2018), the execution of the SPA by the first petitioner has been verified from the records of Embassy of India
at Warsaw.
The second respondent on being served with the notice has appeared with counsel. In terms of the earlier direction, she has submitted her affidavit-
cum-no-objection sworn on 29.09.2018 alongwith which she has submitted her photograph and photocopy of her voter identity card as proof of her
identity. In the said affidavit, she has confirmed that she has settled all the disputes with thepetitioners in terms of the memorandum of settlement
dated 21.03.2016 out of her own free will and volition, without any pressure or coercion. At the hearing, both sides confirmed that the parties have
already moved the Family Court by appropriate petitions, one after the other, on the basis of which their marriage has been dissolved by the Family
Court for South-East District at Saket, by judgment dated 09.11.2017.
In terms of the MOU, the first petitioner was to pay to the second respondent (complainant), a total amount of Rs.4,80,000/-. As per the affidavit
dated 29.09.2018, the second respondent has confirmed that she has already received Rs.3,00,000/- from the first petitioner, the balance amount of
Rs.1,80,000/- being payable at the stage of consideration of the prayer for quashing of the FIR. The special attorney of the first petitioner has handed
over to the second respondent, a demand draft bearing no.516561 dated 05.11.2018 drawn on ICICI Bank in the sum of Rs.1,80,000/- which has been
received by her against proper acknowledgement.
Pertinent to note here that offence under Section 498A IPC is not compoundable. The parties are constrained to move this court for quashing on
the basis of amicable resolution arrived at by them in the facts and circumstances noted above.
The scope and ambit of the power conferred on this court by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) read with Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, in the particular context of prayer for quashing criminal proceedings, was examined by the Supreme Court in B.S.
Joshi and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr., (2003) 4 SCC 675, against the backdrop of a catena of earlier decisions. Noting, with reference to the
decision in State of Karnakata Vs. L Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699, that in exercise of this “inherent†and “wholesome powerâ€, the
touchstone is as to whether “the ends of justice so requireâ€, and it was observed thus :
“10. ... that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution
rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends
of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. ...that the compelling necessity for making these
observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court
to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.â€
(emphasis supplied)
The Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi (supra) further noted as under :-
“What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier
noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There
may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations.
It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again
started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has
married someone else on the earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other
similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing
on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences? The answer clearly has to be in the “negativeâ€. It
would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides.â€
(emphasis supplied)
Holding that “special features in ...matrimonial matters are evident†and that it is “the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of
matrimonial disputesâ€, referring to Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojiroo Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 69,2 it was further observed
that :
“11. ... Where, in the opinion of the court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by
allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings.â€
(emphasis supplied)
In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court contrasted the request for quashing of criminal proceedings on
the basis of settlement with the possibility of compounding of an offence and observed thus :-
“57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as
compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under
Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding
of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby
while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is
guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be
acquittal or dismissal of indictment.â€
(emphasis supplied)
The above views in the context of matrimonial disputes resulting in criminal proceedings have been consistently followed over the years, as may be
further illustrated by the decision of a bench of three Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Ors. Vs. Babita
Raghuvanshi and Anr., (2013) 4 SCC 58, the following observations summarising the philosophy succinctly :-
“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.
There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The 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...â€
(emphasis supplied)
In a case where criminal proceedings arise essentially out of matrimonial dispute and the parties have decided to bury the hatchet, the court must
examine if there is any likelihood of the criminal prosecution resulting in conviction. In fact-situation wherein the matrimonial relation has been brought
to an end by mutual consent and the parties are eager to move on with their respective lives seeking closure and if there is nothing to indicate lack of
bonafide on the part of any side, denial of the prayer for quashing the criminal case would restore acrimony rather than bring about peace. Allowing
continuance of the criminal action would be fruitless and clearly an abuse of judicial process.
The case at hand passes the muster of the above-noted tests.
In the above facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed. The crime registered by the police vide FIR no.67/2012 under Sections 498A / 34
IPC of Police Station Hari Nagar and the proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners are hereby quashed.
The petition is disposed of accordingly. Dasti to both sides.