The Courts in India are now normally taking the view that
endeavour should be taken to promote conciliation and secure speedy
settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs such as,
matrimonial disputes between the couple or/and between the wife and
her in-laws. India being a vast country naturally has large number of
married persons resulting into high numbers of matrimonial disputes
due to differences in temperament, life-styles, opinions, thoughts etc.
between such couples, due to which majority is coming to the Court to
get redressal. In its 59th report, the Law Commission of India had
emphasized that while dealing with disputes concerning the family, the
Court ought to adopt an approach radically different from that
adopted in ordinary civil proceedings and that it should make
reasonable efforts at settlement before the commencement of the trial.
Further it is also the constitutional mandate for speedy disposal of
such disputes and to grant quick justice to the litigants. But, our
Courts are already over burdened due to pendency of large number of
cases because of which it becomes difficult for speedy disposal of
matrimonial disputes alone. As the matrimonial disputes are mainly
between the husband and the wife and personal matters are involved
in such disputes, so, it requires conciliatory procedure to bring a
settlement between them. Nowadays, mediation has played a very
important role in settling the disputes, especially, matrimonial
disputes and has yielded good results. The Court must exercise its
inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to put an end to the
matrimonial litigations at the earliest so that the parties can live
peacefully.
12. Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial,
which now stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties,
therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in
question would be an exercise in futility and is a fit case for this Court
to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.
13. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of statement
made by the respondent No.2 and the settlement arrived at between the
parties, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and
proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL.M.C. 2129/2016
Date of Decision: October 20th, 2016
GIRISH PANDEY & ORS .
Versus
STATE & ANR
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by
the petitioners, namely, Sh. Girish Pandey, Sh. Bhagirath Pandey,
Smt. Dharma Pandey and Ms. Hansa Pandey for quashing of FIR
No.653/2013 dated 17.07.2013, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC
registered at Police Station Shakarpur on the basis of Mediation
Report of Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in
view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner no.1 and
respondent no.2, namely, Smt. Veena Pandey on 09.10.2013.
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been
identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question
by SI Saurabh Chand.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage was
solemnized between petitioner no.1/husband of the complainant and
the complainant/respondent no.2 on 24.11.2010 according to Hindu
rites and ceremonies. The accused persons/petitioners herein, were not
satisfied with the dowry as a result of which they started torturing the
complainant. On 09.03.2012, the in-laws of the complainant threw her
out of the matrimonial house and the husband of the complainant
accompanied her and they started living in a rented accommodation. It
is also alleged that the husband of the complainant allegedly
demanded dowry from the complainant and when the complainant
opposed him, he left her at the rented accommodation on 17.01.2013.
Thereafter, the complainant got lodged a complaint following
which, the FIR in question was registered against the petitioners. An
amicable settlement was arrived at between the parties during the
pendency of the matter.
4. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the
dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. It is pertinent
to mention that the marriage of the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2
has been dissolved vide Decree of divorce dated 19.09.2015 passed by
Ld. Principal Judge, Family Courts, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi. As per the
mediation report, it is agreed that the petitioner no.1 shall pay a sum of
Rs. 8.5 Lacs towards full and final settlement of all the claims of the
respondent no.2 arising out of the marriage which includes
maintenance (past, present and future), permanent alimony, dowry
articles, istridhan etc. as well as maintenance (past, present and future)
in the manner enunciated in the terms of the mediation report. It is also
agreed that out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 2 Lacs shall be paid
by petitioner no.1 at the time of quashing of the FIR in question. It is
agreed that respondent no.2 shall cooperate in getting the FIR in
question quashed against the petitioners. It is agreed that respondent
no.2 shall withdraw all the cases filed by her against the petitioners
and that the parties shall not file any case/complaint against each other
in future.
Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid
settlement and of her affidavit dated 15.02.2016. In the affidavit, she
has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual
consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the
proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.
Statement of the respondent No.2 has been recorded in this regard in
which she stated that she has entered into a settlement with the
petitioners and has settled all the disputes with them. She further
stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in
cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
“61. In other words, the High Court must consider
whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice
to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of
criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of
law despite settlement and compromise between the victim
and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it
is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the
answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High
Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceedings.”
6. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a
recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC
466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh
(Supra) are as under:-
“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:
29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be
distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to
compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No
doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has
inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those
cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have
settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is
to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
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.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions
which involve heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such
offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on
society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been
committed under special statute like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants
while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on
the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
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.
7. The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised to
prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
The respondent no.2 agrees to the quashing of the FIR in question
without any threat or coercion or undue influence and has stated that
the matter has been settled out of her own free will. As the matter has
been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be an
extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal proceedings
between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the considered
opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the
ends of justice.
8. The incorporation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provision
of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is
abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured; where
the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid the
causing of harassment to any person by using the provision of Cr.P.C.
or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery of justice.
Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent the
express provisions of law.
9. It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram
Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case of
Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009
has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Court
comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there
would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not
exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.
10. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced
that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not
affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of
such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace
and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them.
In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and
energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in
entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is
compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S.
Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675
the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of
Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not
compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of
securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary,
section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of
quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon’ble Apex Court justified the
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the
proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts
and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were noncompoundable.
In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that
notwithstanding the fact the offence under Section 498A IPC Act is
non-compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in
quashing the FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied
that the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.
11. The Courts in India are now normally taking the view that
endeavour should be taken to promote conciliation and secure speedy
settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs such as,
matrimonial disputes between the couple or/and between the wife and
her in-laws. India being a vast country naturally has large number of
married persons resulting into high numbers of matrimonial disputes
due to differences in temperament, life-styles, opinions, thoughts etc.
between such couples, due to which majority is coming to the Court to
get redressal. In its 59th report, the Law Commission of India had
emphasized that while dealing with disputes concerning the family, the
Court ought to adopt an approach radically different from that
adopted in ordinary civil proceedings and that it should make
reasonable efforts at settlement before the commencement of the trial.
Further it is also the constitutional mandate for speedy disposal of
such disputes and to grant quick justice to the litigants. But, our
Courts are already over burdened due to pendency of large number of
cases because of which it becomes difficult for speedy disposal of
matrimonial disputes alone. As the matrimonial disputes are mainly
between the husband and the wife and personal matters are involved
in such disputes, so, it requires conciliatory procedure to bring a
settlement between them. Nowadays, mediation has played a very
important role in settling the disputes, especially, matrimonial
disputes and has yielded good results. The Court must exercise its
inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to put an end to the
matrimonial litigations at the earliest so that the parties can live
peacefully.
12. Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial,
which now stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties,
therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in
question would be an exercise in futility and is a fit case for this Court
to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.
13. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of statement
made by the respondent No.2 and the settlement arrived at between the
parties, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and
proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.
14. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.653/2013
dated 17.07.2013, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at
Police Station Shakarpur and the proceedings emanating therefrom are
quashed against the petitioners.
15. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 20, 2016/dd
No comments:
Post a Comment