SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Arun @ Mahesh & Ors. vs The State & Anr. on 31 July, 2019

$~32
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 31st July, 2019

+ CRL.M.C. 746/2019

ARUN @ MAHESH ORS. ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate

versus

THE STATE ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for the
State
R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

ORDER (ORAL)

1. The second respondent was married to the first petitioner as per
Hindu rites and ceremonies on 16.05.2013. The marriage ran into
rough weather, the second respondent raised allegations of she having
been subjected to cruelty and deprived of her stridhan. First
information report (FIR) no.411/2015 having been registered on
11.06.2015 by police station Karawal Nagar on her complaint
involving offences punishable under Sections 498-A/Section406/Section34 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (SectionIPC), the case being directed against her husband
(first petitioner), his parents (second and third petitioners), his sister
(fourth petitioner), and husband of the said sister (fifth petitioner). On
conclusion of the investigation, police filed report under Section 173
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) on which

Crl. M.C. No.746/2019 Page 1 of 7
cognizance was taken, the said matter being pending on the file of the
Metropolitan Magistrate.

2. The parties, however, have entered into an amicable settlement
and executed a settlement deed dated 20.02.2018 in the Counselling
Cell of Family Court at Karkardooma Courts upon reference by the
said court during pending litigation there. In terms of the settlement,
the parties have decided to forego the dispute and allegations against
each other and also part ways peacefully by seeking divorce by mutual
consent, the second respondent having agreed to receive and the first
petitioner having agreed to pay to her total amount of Rs.4,25,000/-as
full and final settlement in installments.

3. The present petition was filed on the basis of the said settlement
seeking quashing of the present proceedings in the aforementioned
criminal case.

4. Upon notice, the second respondent appeared and has sworn an
affidavit dated 18.07.2019 which has come on record. By the said
affidavit, the second respondent has confirmed the aforementioned
settlement of the dispute, the other case having already been
withdrawn, the marriage of the parties having since been dissolved by
a decree of divorce by mutual consent passed on 20.11.2018 in HMA
Petition No.598/2018.

5. By the said affidavit and orally at the hearing, the second
respondent has confirmed that she has already received Rs.3,00,000/-
and only an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- remains to be paid. At the

Crl. M.C. No.746/2019 Page 2 of 7
hearing, the first petitioner has handed over to second respondent and
she has received a demand draft for Rs.1,25,000/-, bearing No.728720,
dated 30.07.2019, drawn on UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
The identity of the second respondent has been confirmed by the
counsel present with her and also by self attested copy of adhar card,
which is taken on record.

6. It is 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.

7. 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, has been the
subject matter of scrutiny and comment by the Supreme Court in a
catena of judgments. It is well settled that in exercise of this
“inherent” and “wholesome power”, the touchstone is as to whether
“the ends of justice so require”. This court had the occasion to trace
the relevant law on the subject in a batch of matters led by SectionYashpal
Chaudhrani vs. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi), 2019 SCC Online Del
8179 wherein after taking note, inter alia, of State of Karnakata v. L
Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699; SectionState of Karnataka v. M.
Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89; SectionB.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana,
(2003) 4 SCC 675; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (2012) 10
SCC 303; SectionJitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 SCC

Crl. M.C. No.746/2019 Page 3 of 7
58; SectionK Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226; SectionNarinder Singh
v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466; SectionState of Rajasthan v. Shambhu
Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; Parbhatbhai Aahir Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Kurmur, (2017) 9 SCC 641 and SectionState of Madhya
Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others, (2019) 5 SCC 688; the broad
principles were culled out as under :-

“55. Though the above-noted authoritative pronouncements
of the Supreme Court have consistently laid down the broad
principles governing the exercise of power of the High Court
under Section 482 of the Cr. PC for bringing an end to the
criminal process, for addressing the concerns noted at the
outset and future guidance of trial courts, some of the crucial
ones may be flagged as under:–

(i). The inherent jurisdiction vested in the High
Court, as recognized and preserved by Section 482
Cr. PC, is primarily to “prevent abuse of the
process of court” or to “otherwise secure the ends
of justice”.

(ii). The ends of justice are higher than the ends of
mere law, the prime principle governing the
exercise of inherent power being “to do real,
complete and substantial justice” for which the
court exists.

(iii) It is the duty of the court to give “adequate
treatment to the settlement between the parties”
particularly in cases involving compoundable
offences, the exercise of inherent power of the High
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., however, not
being inhibited in case of non-compoundable

Crl. M.C. No.746/2019 Page 4 of 7
offences though, for the latter category, such power
is to be “exercised sparingly and with caution”.

(iv). If the criminal case has “overwhelmingly and
predominantly civil character”, particularly if it
arises out of “commercial” (financial, mercantile,
partnership or such other) transaction – and this
would include the “cheque bouncing cases” under
Section 138 N.I. Act – or “matrimonial dispute” or
“family dispute”, genuine resolution on equitable
terms, in entirety, by the parties should result in
criminal proceedings being quashed.

(v). Since the institution of marriage has an
important role to play in the society, the court is to
make every effort to encourage the parties to
terminate such discord amicably and if it appears
that elements of settlement exist, and the parties
are willing, they are to be directed to the process of
mediation to explore the possibility of settlement, it
being desirable to do so even at the “pre-litigation
stage”.

(vi). While examining the prayer for quashing of a
non compoundable offence, on the basis of
settlement of the dispute between the wrongful doer
and the victim, the High Court is to bear in mind as
to whether the possibility of conviction is “remote
and oblique” and further, if the continuation of the
criminal case would lead to “oppression and
prejudice” or “extreme injustice” for the accused.

(vii). The considerations which would weigh with
Court include the antecedents of the accused,
possible lack of bona fides, his past conduct and

Crl. M.C. No.746/2019 Page 5 of 7
that includes the question as to whether he had
earlier absconded and as to how he had managed
with the complainant to enter into a compromise.

(viii). But, the High Court, when called upon to
exercise the power under Section 482 Cr. PC to
bring the criminal case to an end on the basis of
settlement, must steer clear of intervention in
“heinous” or “serious” offences, including those
involving “mental depravity”, as indeed
“economic offences” affecting “the financial and
economic well being of the State”, such as murder,
attempt to murder, extortion, forgery, rape,
dacoity, financial or economic frauds, cases under
SectionArms Act, etc., the reason being that such offences
are “not private in nature” but have “a serious
impact upon society”, and continuation of trial
thereof is essential due to “overriding element of
public interest”.

(ix). The court, however, is not to go by mere use of
label of a serious offence (e.g. offence under
Section 307 IPC), it being open to it to examine, by
scrutiny of the evidence gathered, to find as to
whether there are sufficient grounds to frame
charge for such offence and, in this view, it being
“not permissible” to intervene till the matter has
been properly investigated.”

8. 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

Crl. M.C. No.746/2019 Page 6 of 7
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.

9. The case at hand passes the muster of the above-noted tests.

10. In the above facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed.
The crime registered by the police vide FIR No.411/2015, under
Sections 498-A/Section406/Section34 IPC of Police Station Karawal Nagar and the
proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioners are hereby
quashed.

11. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

R.K.GAUBA, J.

JULY 31, 2019
vk

Crl. M.C. No.746/2019 Page 7 of 7

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

Recent Comments

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2024 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation