AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vide the present petitions, the petitioners i.e. petitioners No.1 and 2, namely Kunal Narula and Hemant Suri in Crl.M.C. No.374/2020 in relation to FIR No. 382/2016, Police Station Dabri registered under Sections 324/354/354B/506/34, of the Indian Penal Code,1860 and the petitioners No. 1 to 3, namely, Hemant Suri, Vijay Kumar Suri and Smt. Poonam Suri in Crl.M.C. No. 383/2020 qua FIR No. 523/2016 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code seek the quashing of the FIRs in question.
The respondent No.2 Ms.Neha Suri in both the petitions is the complainant of both the FIRs in question.
Ms.Neha Suri has since been divorced from Hemant Suri (petitioner No.2 in Crl M.C. 374/2020 and Petitioner no.1 in Crl.M.C. No. 383/2020) vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13 B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide decree dated 26.9.20219 in HMA 2782/2019 of the Court of the Judge Family Courts, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi and the respondent No.2 has identified all the petitioners. The respondent No.2 has been identified by the Investigating Officer of FIR No. 382/2016, Police Station Dabri registered under Sections 324/354/354B/506/34, of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (Crl.M.C. No. 374/2020) and also by her counsel Mr.Vibhor Verdhan. The respondent No.2 has identified the petitioners of both the petitions.
The Investigating Officer of FIR No. 382/2016, Police Station Dabri registered under Sections 324/354/354B/506/34,of the Indian Penal Code,1860 has also identified the petitioners of Crl.M.C. No. 374/2020.
The petitioners of both the petitions and the respondent No.2 are stated to have arrived at a settlement vide a settlement deed dated 7.6.2019 pursuant to which the total settled sum of Rs.16,00,000/- had been agreed to be paid to the respondent No.2, the complainant of the FIRs by the petitioners of which a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- is stated to have been received by her previously and the balance sum of Rs.10,00,000/- has now been handed over to her through her brother Mr.Kamal Kakkar vide a demand draft bearing No. 239550 dated 19.9.2020 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank in favour of the respondent No.2 in the name of Neha Suri and she has stated in reply to a specific Court query that she has an account in that name. It has been stated by the respondent No.2 in replies to specific Court queries that she does not oppose the prayer made by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the FIR as she wants to move in her life and wants to pursue her career and has a seven year old child. She has further stated that she has done MBA and works in a real estate company and that she has understood the implications of the statement made by her and does not need to think again.
In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, on behalf of the State there is now thus no opposition in view of the deposition of the respondent No.2 qua which there appears no reason to disbelieve the same that she has so deposed voluntarily of her own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter. Thus, it is considered appropriate to put a quietus to the litigation between the parties qua the FIRs 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. 382/2016, Police Station Dabri registered under Sections 324/354/354B/506/34, of the Indian Penal Code,1860 qua the petitioners No.1 and 2 namely Kunal Narula and Hemant Suri and FIR No. 523/2016 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code qua the petitioners No. 1 to 3, namely, Hemant Suri, Vijay Kumar Suri and Smt. Poonam Suri, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are thus quashed.
The petition is disposed of.
However, it is made expressly clear that vide clause 1 of the settlement deed dated 7.6.2019 between Hemant Suri and Neha Suri it has been agreed to the effect:
"That party of the first part/husband will pay Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Only) to the party of the second part in lieu of full and final settlement regarding alimony, maintenance (Past, Present & Future) and stridhan of the second part/wife and maintenance (Past, Present 85 Future) of minor child namely Master Aadvik." whereby the respondent No.2 i.e., Neha Suri, presently now Neha Kakkar has agreed to the effect that the amount of Rs.16,00,000/- was in lieu of full and final settlement regarding alimony maintenance (Past, Present & Future) and stridhan and maintenance (Past, Present 85 Future) of the minor child namely Master Aadvik who is in her custody as per the settlement deed.
It is apparent that in terms of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganesh V. Sudhir Kumar Shrivastava & Ors.; Civil Appeal Nos. 4031-4032/2019 arising out of SLP(C)Nos. 32868- 32869/2018, a verdict dated 22.4.2019 and adhered to by this Court in Rakesh Jain & Ors. V. State and Anr. in Crl.M.C. No. 2935/2019. the rights of the minor child cannot be given up by the mother. In view thereof the quashing of the FIRs in question would not amount to any embargo on the minor child born of the wedlock between the respondent No.2 and Hemant Suri seeking his claims against the petitioners in Crl.M.C. Nos. 383/2020 qua maintenance or otherwise in accordance with law.