Naveen Sharma And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 12 April, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5563 / 2015
1. Naveen Sharma S/o Shri Jagdish Raj Sharma, R/o 224,
Diiorio Circle, Ancaster ON.L9K ITI, Canada, previously
resident of 3-B, Vijay Mandal Enclave, Hauz Khas New
Delhi.
2. Sharda Sharma W/o Late Sh. Jagdish Raj Sharma, R/o
224, Diiorio Circle, Ancaster ON.L9K ITI, Canada, previously
resident of 3-B, Vijay Mandal Enclave, Hauz Khas New
Delhi.
3. Dimple Sharma D/o Late Sh. Jagdish Raj Sharma, R/o
224, Diiorio Circle, Ancaster ON.L9K ITI, Canada, previously
resident of 3-B, Vijay Mandal Enclave, Hauz Khas New
Delhi.

—-Petitioners/Accused
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor.
—-Respondent

2. Meenal Bhargav Alias Sharma, alias Bhargava, W/o
Naveen Sharma, D/o Navnit Bhargav, R/o Bhargav Bargava
House, Behind Revenue Board Civil Lines, Ajmer
(Rajasthan)

—-Complainant/Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. OP Mishra and Mr. P Jauhar
Public Prosecutor : Mr. Jitendra Shrimali
Investigating Officer : Ms. Neetu Rathore, SI, Police Station Mahila
Thana, Ajmer
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA
Order
12/04/2017

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is preferred by

petitioners Naveen Sharma (Husband), Sharda Sharma (Mother-

in-law), Dimple Sharma (Sister-in-law) of respondent no.

(2 of 12)
[CRLMP-5563/2015]

2/complainant for quashing impugned FIR No. 284/2014

registered at Mahila Police Station, Ajmer under Sections 406,

498-A IPC and subsequent proceedings.

Learned Counsel for petitioners Mr. P Jauhar submits

that petitioner no.1 has filed D.B. Habeaus Corpus Petition No.

106/2015 before this Court wherein on 17.12.2015, the Division

Bench of this Court passed following order :-

“Husband Naveen Sharma and wife

Meenal are present in person. They both have

minor son Pranav.

In the present Habeas Corpus Petition,

the husband has claimed custody of Pranav on

the basis of orders dated 02.04.2015 and

16.04.2015 passed by the Superior Court of

Justice, Family Court, Hamilton, Ontario in Court

File No.3173-14. The wife is presently residing in

Ajmer along with Pranav, whereas husband is an

American citizen having his domicile in USA.

Having regard to the nature of dispute

between the parties, this Court referred the

matter for mediation for amicable settlement.

After mediation, the parties have agreed to live

together by resolving their differences on

following terms:-

“(1) Both the parties will withdraw their

respective cases within 4 months from today.

(3 of 12)
[CRLMP-5563/2015]

(2) Mr. Naveen Sharma will find out 3-4 flats

for choice of Smt.Meenal and Smt.Meenal will

then go to U.S.A. to select one of them. This

process should complete within 18 months.

(3) In the meantime Mr. Naveen Sharma will

come to India to meet Mrs.Meenal and Pranav at

least for 3 time. Similarly Mrs.Meenal will go to

U.S.A. along with her son under the security with

condition that Mr.Naveen will arrange all their

expenses including travelling expenses and will

undertake that if both of them desire to return

India then Mr.Naveen will arrange their safe

return to India.

(4) The flat which is going to purchase by

Mr.Naveen Sharma should be in joint name of

both party. None of the party will entitle to sale

this flat or it’s any part independently.

Mr.Naveen Sharma will arrange collateral

security against loan and in no case the flat

should be taken from ownership and possession

of Mrs.Meenal Sharma. In case any mishapening

the flat will remain in ownership of Mrs.Meenal

Sharma.

(5) Mr. Naveen, Mrs.Meenal and Pranav will

live jointly at U.S.A. after purchase of flat. None

of the family member of both parties will disturb

READ  Santosh Surendra Patil vs Surendra Narasgonda Patil And Ors on 23 June, 2017

and interfere in their lives. “”

(4 of 12)
[CRLMP-5563/2015]

He submits that since dispute between parties has

already been resolved by the intervention of mediator and the

same has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. In

settlement, it was decided that all parties shall withdraw their

respective cases but respondent no. 2 even after settlement failed

to withdraw the impugned FIR, therefore same may be quashed.

Learned Counsel for petitioners further submits that

petitioners have acted upon the settlement but now respondent

no. 2/complainant is not withdrawing the impugned FIR and

cooperating for quashing of FIR.

Learned PP submits that if compromise has been

arrived between the parties then FIR may be quashed.

Learned Counsel for petitioners relied on Anshu Soni

Ors. Vs State Anr. reported in 2012 SCC Online Del 5967

and Mohd. Shamim and Others Vs Nahid Begum and Anr.

reported in AIR 2005 SC 757.

In the matter of Mohd. Shamim and Others Vs

Nahid Begum and Anr.(supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court observed

that :-

“11. Before us, there is no denial or dispute as

regards the factum of entering into the

aforementioned settlement dated 14.11.2002. In

the said deed of compromise it has categorically

been averred that the same had been entered

into on the intervention of S.N. Gupta, Additional
(5 of 12)
[CRLMP-5563/2015]

Sessions Judge, Delhi. It has also been accepted

that out of sum of Rs.2,75,000/-, a sum of

Rs.2,25,000/- has been paid to the First

Respondent herein and the balance amount of

Rs.50,000/- would be paid at the time of

complainant’s making statement and no

objection for quashing the FIR, which was

retained in the court as per the direction of the

court. It has further been averred that no dispute

remained between the parties regarding the

payment of dower amount (Mehar), dowry

articles, including the alleged jewellary gift etc.

12.In view of the fact that the settlement was

arrived at the intervention of a judicial officer of

the rank of the Additional Sessions Judge, we are

of the opinion, the contention of the First

Respondent herein to the effect that she was not

aware of the contents thereof and the said

agreement as also the affidavits which were got

signed by her by misrepresentation of facts must

be rejected. In the facts and circumstances of

this case, we have no doubt in our mind that the

denial of execution of the said deed of settlement

is an afterthought on the part of the Respondent

No.1 herein.

13. Ex facie the settlement between the parties

appears to be genuine. If the contention of the
(6 of 12)
[CRLMP-5563/2015]

First Respondent herein is to be accepted, she

would not have accepted the sum of

Rs.2,25,000/- and in any event, she could have

filed an appropriate application in that behalf

before the Court of S.N. Gupta, Additional

Sessions Judge, Delhi. What was least expected

of her was that she would return the said sum of

Rs.2,25,000/- to the Appellants herein.

14. Section 406 is a compoundable offence

with the permission of the court. It is true that

Section 498-A IPC is not compoundable.

15. This Court in Ruchi Agarwal vs. Amit

Kumar Agrawal Ors. [2004 (8) Supreme 525],

in almost a similar situation has quashed a

criminal proceeding against the husband,

stating : (SCC pp. 301-02, paras 8-9)

“8. …..Therefore, we are of the opinion

that the appellant having received the relief she

READ  Prakash Mishra vs Smt. Jaya Mishra on 15 May, 2017

wanted without contest on the basis of the terms

of the compromise, we cannot now accept the

argument of the learned counsel for the

appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the

appellant indicates that the criminal complaint

from which this appeal arises was filed by the

wife only to harass the respondents.

(7 of 12)
[CRLMP-5563/2015]

9. In view of the above said subsequent

events and the conduct of the appellant, it would

be an abuse of the process of the court if the

criminal proceedings from which this appeal

arises is allowed to continue”

16. In view of the conduct of the first

Respondent in entering into the aforementioned

settlement, the continuance of the criminal

proceeding pending against the Appellants, in our

opinion, in this case also, would be an abuse of

the process of the court. Respondent No.1,

however, would be entitled to withdraw the sum

of Rs.50,000/- which has been deposited in the

court. We, therefore, in exercise of our

jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution

of India direct that the impugned judgment be

set aside. The First Information Report lodged

against the Appellants is quashed. The Appeal is

allowed. However, this order should not be

treated as a precedent. ”

Similarly in the matter of Anshu Soni Ors. Vs State

Anr., (supra), Single Bench of Delhi High Court observed that :-

“5. It is apparent from the facts narrated

herein above that the parties had arrived at an

amicable settlement before the learned Mediator,

inasmuch as settlement has even been acted

upon by the petitioners. The engagement ring
(8 of 12)
[CRLMP-5563/2015]

has been returned and a sum of 1,37,500/- has

been paid in Court on 28th September, 2012,

inasmuch as, today petitioners have tendered the

pay order in the sum of 1,37,500/-. Petitioners

have done whatever they were required to do in

terms of the settlement agreement dated 14th

September, 2012. However, as an afterthought

respondent no. 2 attempts to wriggle out of it on

flimsy grounds after availing partial financial

benefits in terms of the settlement, which in my

view is impermissible. Respondent no.2 cannot

be allowed to withdraw herself from fulfilling her

part of obligation as contained in the settlement

agreement after availing benefits therefrom.

Conduct of the respondent no.2 clearly

demonstrates that she wants to keep the criminal

proceedings pending in order to harass the

petitioners.

6. After having settled the matter through the

process of mediation, which has even been acted

upon partially, parties cannot be permitted to

back track from the same as it will negate the

aims and objectives of whole process of

mediation. Withdrawal of consent by respondent

no.2 on some innocuous ground is impermissible.

In Ruchi Aggarwal versus Amit Kumar Agrawal

and Ors. 2005 (1) ALT 42 (SC), civil and criminal
(9 of 12)
[CRLMP-5563/2015]

litigations were pending between the husband

and wife. Matter was compromised before the

Family Court pursuant whereof, a decree of

divorce by mutual consent was granted. Wife

withdrew application filed by her under Section

125 Cr.P.C. in terms of the settlement, however,

she avoided to withdraw the complaint under

Sections 498-A/328/506 IPC and Sections 3 and

4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Accordingly, husband filed a petition before the

High Court of Uttaranchal for quashing of the

said complaint. In the said petition, High Court

quashed the charge-sheet and the summoning

order for want of territorial jurisdiction and

READ  Kanchhedilal vs The State Of M.P. on 25 May, 2017

transferred the investigations to the concerned

Police Station. Wife preferred an appeal before

the Supreme Court wherein criminal proceedings

were quashed keeping in mind the settlement

arrived at between the parties despite opposition

of the wife.

7. In Jaibir versus State 2007 (142) DLT 141,

in somewhat similar circumstances, a Single

Judge of this Court quashed the FIR registered

against the father and other relatives of wife

despite opposition of the complainant-husband.

In the said case also, husband and wife had

settled their disputes before the Mediation
(10 of 12)
[CRLMP-5563/2015]

Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The settlement

was even acted upon by the parties, inasmuch as

cases registered on the complaint of wife were

disposed of in terms of the settlement. Later on,

husband opposed the quashing of FIR registered

on his complaint against the relatives of wife. It

was held thus “this being a complete package,

the complainant cannot turn around and oppose

the petition after he agreed for quashing of these

proceedings at the time of mediation

proceedings. There is another aspect which

needs to be emphasized. The settlement was

arrived at during the mediation proceedings. The

Legislature has amended Section 89 of the Code

of Civil Procedure in the year 2002. There is an

all round attempt by the settlement of disputes

through the process of Mediation. Therefore,

once the disputes between the parties have been

settled by the process of mediation, it would be

in the public interest as well as to attach

importance to such a process and treat the

settlement as a solemn settlement. Otherwise,

the movement of medication may itself suffer if

the parties are given to understand that even

after they agree for settlement, one of the

parties can still back out.”

(11 of 12)
[CRLMP-5563/2015]

8. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion

that the continuance of criminal proceedings

would result in abuse of process of law, thus, the

FIR is liable to be quashed by this Court in

exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482

Cr.P.C. in view of the settlement, despite

opposition of the respondent no.2. Accordingly,

FIR No. 343/12 under Sections 3/4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act and Section 506 IPC registered at

Police Station Tilak Nagar and the consequent

proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed,

however, subject to petitioners depositing

balance settled amount, that is, 1,37,500/-

(Rupees One Lac Thirty Seven Thousand Five

Hundred Only) with the Registrar General of this

Court within two weeks. Upon such deposit being

made the same shall be kept in FDR initially for a

period of six months with its automatic renewals

thereafter. However, it would be open for the

respondent no.2 to withdraw this amount if, she

so, desires. “

From the perusal of aforesaid Division Bench order, it

reveals that parties have settled their dispute, therefore relying on

the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment and judgment of Single

Bench of Delhi High Court continuing the criminal proceedings of

impugned FIR would result in abuse of process of law, thus the

impugned FIR is liable to be quashed by this Court while
(12 of 12)
[CRLMP-5563/2015]

exercising inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 482

Cr.P.C., therefore this Misc. Petition is allowed and the impugned

FIR No. 284/2014 registered at Mahila Thana, Ajmer for offences

under Sections 406, 498A IPC and subsequent proceedings

eminating their from including LOC are quashed and set aside.

(BANWARI LAL SHARMA)J.

Charu 79

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *