—
Delhi High Court – Orders
Avdhesh Kumar Singh And Ors vs The State Nct Of Delhi Anr on 26 February, 2024
Author: Jyoti Singh
Bench: Jyoti Singh
$~83
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 645/2024
AVDHESH KUMAR SINGH AND ORS ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate along
with Petitioners in person.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC for State with
SI Suresh Kumar, PS: New Usmanpur.
Ms. Kiran, Advocate for R-2 along with R-2 in
person.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
ORDER
% 26.02.2024
CRL.M.A. 5996/2024 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(CRL) 645/2024
3. This petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioners under Article
226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking
quashing of FIR No. 347/2021 dated 03.07.2021 under Sections
498A/406/34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered
at PS: New Usmanpur including proceedings emanating therefrom.
4. Marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was
solemnized on 08.02.2012 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Delhi.
A male child was born from the said wedlock on 15.08.2014, who is in the
custody of Petitioner No.1. On account of disputes and differences arising
between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, they have been living
W.P.(CRL) 645/2024 Page 1 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2024 at 22:46:11
separately since 24.08.2020. Respondent No. 2 made a complaint against the
Petitioners which culminated into registration of the present FIR.
Respondent No.2 filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance
and also filed a complaint case under Section 12 of Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘D.V. Act’).
5. During the pendency of this petition, parties have resolved all their
disputes with the intervention of family, friends and well-wishers by way of
an oral settlement dated 06.02.2023. Marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and
Respondent No. 2 has been dissolved by mutual consent by a Decree of
Divorce dated 06.09.2023, copy of which is annexed to the petition. As per
the terms of settlement, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was payable by Petitioner
No.1 to Respondent No.2 in full and final settlement of all her claims
including permanent alimony, istridhan, dowry, maintenance etc. in three
instalments, out of which the first instalment of Rs.30,000/- was to be paid
at the time of recording of statements during First Motion under Section
13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the second instalment of
Rs.30,000/- was to be paid at the time of recording of statements during
Second Motion under Section 13B(2). The balance amount of Rs.40,000/-
was payable at the time of quashing of the FIR.
6. Issue notice.
7. Learned ASC accepts notice on behalf of the State.
8. Ms. Kiran, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent
No.2.
9. Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 are present in Court and are
identified by their respective counsels as well as Investigating Officer SI
Suresh Kumar, PS: New Usmanpur. sRespondent No. 2 acknowledges the
W.P.(CRL) 645/2024 Page 2 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2024 at 22:46:11
receipt of balance amount of Rs.40,000/- of the settlement amount paid to
her by way of Demand Draft bearing No.003659 dated 13.02.2024 drawn on
Bank of Baroda, Burari Branch. Respondent No. 2 submits that she has no
objection to the FIR being quashed as the marriage between her and
Petitioner No. 1 stands dissolved and all other disputes have been amicably
settled with all the Petitioners. Petition filed by Respondent No.2 under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance and the complaint under Section 12 of
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘D.V. Act’) have
been withdrawn by Respondent No.2. Learned ASC also has no objection to
the quashing of the FIR, in view of the settlement between the parties.
10. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another,
(2012) 10 SCC 303, observed that while exercising inherent powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. in respect of quashing of an FIR where parties have
entered into amicable resolution of the disputes, one of the considerations
would be whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to
continue the criminal proceedings despite the compromise and if the answer
to the question is in the affirmative, the High Court would be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings, in order to ensure that the
disputes are put to an end and peace is restored as securing the ends of
justice is the ultimate guiding factor. This was of-course with a caveat that
heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder,
dacoity etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or the
victim’s family settles the disputes with the offender. Relevant paragraphs of
the judgment are as follows:-
“55. In the very nature of its constitution, it is the judicial obligation of
the High Court to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice or to
prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process. This is founded onW.P.(CRL) 645/2024 Page 3 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2024 at 22:46:11
the legal maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, conceditur et id sine
qua res ipsa esse non potest. The full import of which is whenever anything
is authorised, and especially if, as a matter of duty, required to be done by
law, it is found impossible to do that thing unless something else not
authorised in express terms be also done, may also be done, then that
something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. Ex debito
justitiae is inbuilt in such exercise; the whole idea is to do real, complete
and substantial justice for which it exists. The power possessed by the
High Court under Section 482 of the Code is of wide amplitude but
requires exercise with great caution and circumspection.
xxx xxx xxx
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.
xxx xxx xxx
61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be
W.P.(CRL) 645/2024 Page 4 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2024 at 22:46:12
summarised thus : the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal
proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is
distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for
compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power
is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised
in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the
ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what
cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be
exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute
would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category
can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High
Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime.
Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or
victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are
not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any
compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences
under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot
provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such
offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes
of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences
arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes
where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties
have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High
Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the
compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case
would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme
injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite
full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 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 proceeding
or continuation of the criminal proceeding 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 the 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 proceeding.”
11. The Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed this view and in the
context of matrimonial disputes, it would be relevant to refer to the
W.P.(CRL) 645/2024 Page 5 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2024 at 22:46:12
observations of the Supreme Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others v.
Babita Raghuvanshi and Another, (2013) 4 SCC 58, relevant paragraphs of
which are as follows:-
“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. The 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. We also
make it clear that exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases
in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which
alone the courts exist. It is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine
settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of the Code enables
the High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enables this Court to
pass such orders.”
12. Parties have mutually settled all their disputes. Marriage between
Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 stands dissolved. Settlement amount
has been paid to Respondent No. 2. In view of the settlement between the
parties and the categorical stand of Respondent No.2 that she does not want
to pursue the complaint, no useful purpose will be achieved in continuing
the criminal proceedings emanating from the subject FIR as the chances of
W.P.(CRL) 645/2024 Page 6 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2024 at 22:46:12
conviction are bleak and it would be in the interest of justice that the
proceedings are terminated. It is settled that where criminal proceedings
arise essentially out of matrimonial dispute and parties decide to bury the
hatchet, Court must examine the likelihood of criminal prosecution resulting
in a conviction. Unless there is an indication of lack of bona fide on either
side, if the parties are keen to move on with their respective lives and seek
closure of the disputes, rejecting the prayer to quash the criminal case would
restore acrimony instead of bringing about peace and harmony. This Court is
fortified in its view by the judgments of this Court in Mohit Sharma Ors.
v. State (NCT of Delhi) Anr., 2019/DHC/1440; Chandan Kumar
Majumdar v. State and Another; and Nazimuddin and Others v. State and
Another, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9325, where the Courts have quashed FIRs
under similar provisions, predicated on settlement between the parties, in the
interest of justice. Accordingly, FIR No. 347/2021 dated 03.07.2021 under
Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
registered at PS: New Usmanpur is quashed including proceedings
emanating therefrom.
13. It is made clear that in view of the binding dictum of the Supreme
Court in Ganesh v. Sudhirkumar Shrivastava and Others, (2020) 20 SCC
787, the terms of settlement between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2
shall not come in the way of the child born out of the wedlock, from
enforcing his rights against Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, if and
when he chooses to so enforce.
14. Petition stands allowed and disposed of.
JYOTI SINGH, J
FEBRUARY 26, 2024/kks
W.P.(CRL) 645/2024 Page 7 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2024 at 22:46:12
