Pradip Saha & Ors. vs State Of NCT Of Delhi & Anr.

NOW HENCE THIS DEED IS WITNESSETH AS UNDER:

1.

It has been agreed between the parties shall obeyed the terms and conditions mentioned in the settlement dated 10.07.2024 Counselling Cell of Hon'ble Court of Sh. Sanjeev Jain, Principal Judge, Family Court, East District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi.

2.

That both the parties shall move a joint petition for mutual consent divorce of second motion, within one month from the date of signing of preset settlement.

3.

That it is agreed further agreed in between the parties that First party shall file quashing petition for quashing FIR no. 0542/2020 u/s 376/498A/506/34 registered with P.S. New Ashok Nagar, Delhi before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and second party will co-operate to quash the aforesaid FIR.

4.

That entire expenses of filing and litigation charges related to Section motion of Divorce u/s 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 & filing of quashing of FIR before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi will be borne by the both parties with their own.

5.

That parties to the present deed have agreed and undertaken to dissolve their marriage by decree of divorce by mutual consent under sec 13 (B) of H.M. Act and both the parties shall initiate appropriate legal proceedings before the court of competent jurisdiction for recording of motion within one month from the date of signing the present deed, at their own individual expenses.

6.

That it has been further mutually agreed between the parties to the present deed that both the parties as well as their family members shall refrain themselves from defaming (directly or indirectly/ oral or written or in any manner whatsoever), the other party or their family members at their work place and in the society as well.

7.

That both the parties hereby mutually agree to fully co-operate with each other in filing of the petition under Section 13 B (2) of H.M.A. within one month of the signing of this deed at their own expenses.

8.

That it has been further mutually agreed between both the parties that they shall not file any cases/ litigations against each other and their family members in future.

9.

That it has been agreed amongst the parties that after passing of decree of divorce by mutual consent, any claim/representation, case, complaint filed by the parties and pending before any forum judicial or quasi-judicial or any other authority shall be deemed to have been settled upon/ withdrawn unconditionally and neither of the party shall take any step-in furtherance of said representation/ complaint/ case, if any.

10.

That both the parties to this deed have arrived at the present compromise/ settlement, in their sound state of mind, without any force, fraud, coercion, undue influence etc. from any hook or corner.

11.

That if either of the parties withdraw from the terms and conditions of this Compromise Deed, the other party shall have right to take appropriate action against the opposite party before the appropriate court of law.

“58.

Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. 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.

“29.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

***

29.2.

When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i)

ends of justice, or

(ii)

to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

***

29.4.

On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.”

“14.

The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S. Joshi [(2003) 4 SCC 675: 2003 SCC (Cri) 848], this Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings where dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered into between the parties who are willing to settle their differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said decision is directly applicable to the case on hand and the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement arrived at.

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.”

C. STATUS OF TRIAL

I. Charge Sheet filed

II. TOTAL NO. OF WITNESSES:- 15

III. NO. OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES EXAMINED:- Nil

“29.5.

While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.”

“14.

Furthermore, this Court has consistently taken the view that where the matrimonial relationship has come to an end by way of divorce, and the parties have since settled into their respective lives, criminal prosecution emanating from that past relationship ought not to be permitted to linger as a means of harassment. In the cases of Mala Kar v. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal No. 1684 of 2024 dated 19.03.2024 (“Mala Kar”) and Arun Jain v. State of NCT of Delhi, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9178 of 2018 dated 01.04.2024 (“Arun Jain”), this Court, while exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord against the husband. The Court took note of the fact that the couple therein had divorced and held that in such a situation, to continue with criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law. The reasoning adopted therein applies with equal force to the facts of the present case. ...”