SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jatinder Singh Anand & Ors. vs State & Anr. on 5 August, 2019

$~ 5 6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 5th August, 2019

+ CRL.M.C. 400/2019

JATINDER SINGH ANAND ORS. ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satyam Thareja, Adv.

versus

STATE ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP
for the State with W/SI Radha
Sharma, PS CWC Nanak Pura.
Mr. Aditya Singla Mr. Pallav
Gupta, Advs. for R-2 with R-2
in person.

+ CRL.M.C. 401/2019

JATINDER SINGH ANAND ORS. ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Satyam Thareja, Adv.

versus

STATE ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP
for the State with SI Parvesh
Lamba, PS South Campus.
Mr. Aditya Singla Mr. Pallav
Gupta, Advs. for R-2 with R-2
in person.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

Crl. M.C. No. 400 401 of 2019 Page 1 of 8
ORDER (ORAL)

1. The second respondent in these petitions was married to the first
petitioner, common to both the matters, as per Sikh Rites and
Ceremonies on 08.09.2013. The marriage ran into rough weather, the
second respondent raised allegations of she having been subjected to
cruelty and deprived of her valuable articles on her complaint, first
information report (FIR) no. 276/2015 (first case) having been
registered by police station South Campus on 20.05.2015 involving
offences punishable under Sections 506/Section509/Section34 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 (SectionIPC). Subsequently, on her complaint another FIR no. 94/2015
(second case) was registered on 02.09.2015 with police station CWC,
Nanak Pura, the case involving offences punishable under Sections
498A/Section406/Section34 IPC. The first case is directed against the husband, his
brother-in-law, his uncle and his father (first to fourth petitioners
respectively in Crl.M.C. 400/2019) while the second FIR was directed
against the husband, his father, his mother, brother-in-law and his
sisters (first to sixth petitioners in Crl.M.C. 401/2019).

2. The parties, however, were persuaded to enter into an amicable
settlement through the process of mediation and executed a formal
settlement deed on 24.05.2018 in Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi. The present petitions have been filed invoking the
inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (SectionCr.P.C.) to bring an end to the afore-
mentioned two criminal cases on such basis.

Crl. M.C. No. 400 401 of 2019 Page 2 of 8

3. The second respondent on being served with notice has entered
appearance through counsel. On being directed, she has submitted her
affidavits sworn on 12.07.2019 which have been placed on file of each
of the petitions, copies of her voter identity card having been
submitted therewith as proof of identity. The second respondent
through the said affidavits, and also in person at the hearing, has
confirmed that she has settled the matter amicably on the terms set out
in the settlement agreement dated 24.05.2018, a copy whereof has
been filed in each of these matters.

4. In terms of the above-mentioned settlement agreement, the
marriage of the first petitioner and the second respondent has been
dissolved by the Family Court for West District by judgment and
decree dated 17.01.2019 passed in HMA No. 34/2019, a copy whereof
has been submitted and kept on record.

5. As per the settlement agreement, the second respondent is to
receive from the first petitioner, who is obliged to pay to her a total
amount of Rs. Ten lakhs as full and final settlement of all her claims,
on all counts including stridhan and permanent alimony. It was
submitted on the last date of hearing that pursuant to order dated
07.05.2016 of the court of Sessions on an anticipatory bail application,
in the context of second above-mentioned case i.e. FIR no. 94/2015, a
fixed deposit receipt (FDR) in the sum of Rs. ten lakhs had been
deposited by the first petitioner. It is the agreement between the
parties that the said FIR would be released to the second respondent
for satisfaction of her claim under the above-mentioned agreement.

Crl. M.C. No. 400 401 of 2019 Page 3 of 8

6. Some confusion had prevailed on the last date as to the
compliance with the above-mentioned condition in the anticipatory
bail order, neither the investigating agency nor the parties being clear
as to where such FDR had been deposited. A report dated 02.08.2019
from the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court-01, South West
District, Dwarka District Courts, New Delhi has been received and
confirms that FDR bearing no. 67362290542 dated 13.05.2016, for an
amount of Rs. ten lakhs drawn on State Bank of Travancore Branch at
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi is lying on the file of the Metropolitan
Magistrate in the case arising out of FIR no. 94/2015.

7. The second respondent has the liberty to approach the
concerned Metropolitan Magistrate with appropriate application upon
which the FDR mentioned above shall be released to her.

8. 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.

9. 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 Yashpal

Crl. M.C. No. 400 401 of 2019 Page 4 of 8
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
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.

Crl. M.C. No. 400 401 of 2019 Page 5 of 8

(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
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

Crl. M.C. No. 400 401 of 2019 Page 6 of 8
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
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.”

Crl. M.C. No. 400 401 of 2019 Page 7 of 8

10. 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
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.

11. The cases at hand pass the muster of the above-noted tests.

12. In the above facts and circumstances, the petitions are allowed.
The crimes registered by the police vide FIR No. 276/2015 under
Sections 506/Section509/Section34 IPC of police station South Campus and vide FIR
No. 94/2015 under Sections 498A/Section406/Section34 IPC of Police Station CWC
Nanak Pura and the proceedings emanating therefrom against the
petitioners are hereby quashed.

13. The petitions are disposed of accordingly.

14. Dasti under the signatures of Court Master to both sides.

R.K.GAUBA, J.

AUGUST 05, 2019
nk

Crl. M.C. No. 400 401 of 2019 Page 8 of 8

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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