—

Delhi High Court – Orders

Pawan Kumar vs State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 22 February, 2024

$~60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 617/2024
PAWAN KUMAR ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Roopenshu Pratap Singh, Mr.
Manish Sharma and Mr. Amit Mishra,
Advs. with petitioner in person.
versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, SC for State with SI
Kusum PS Mandir Marg
Mr. Lakshaya Choudhary, Adv. for
R2 with respondent no. 2 in person.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
ORDER

% 22.02.2024

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR
No.151/2020 under Sections 376/354/509 IPC registered at Police Station
Mandir Marg and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom on the
ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement.

2. Issue notice. The learned SC for the State accepts notice. He submits
that since the FIR is an outcome of a matrimonial dispute and the parties
have arrived at a settlement, the State has no objection in case the FIR in
question is quashed.

3. The petitioner, as well as, respondent no. 2 are present in the Court

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 26/02/2024 at 21:59:55
and they have been identified by their respective counsel and by the
Investigating Officer with SI Kusum PS Mandir Marg.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the
respondent no. 2 and her husband namely, Neeraj was solemnized on
28.06.2020 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. Out of the said wedlock,
no child was born.

5. On account of temperamental issues certain disputes arose between
the respondent no. 2 and her husband and they started living separately
w.e.f. 06.11.2020. The dispute between the parties also led to the
registration of aforesaid FIR against the present petitioner who is a friend of
the husband of the respondent no. 2 and the father of her husband namely,
Ram Pal who has since expired.

6. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties were referred to
Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi where they arrived at a
settlement, terms whereof were reduced in writing in the form of Settlement
dated 13.09.2023, which is annexed as Annexure P2 to the present petition.

7. In terms of the said settlement, the respondent no. 2 and her husband
decided to dissolve their marriage by filing a petition for divorce by way of
mutual consent. The respondent no. 2 and her husband who are present in
Court state that the first motion petition has already been allowed and they
shall be filing the second motion petition after the quashing of the present
FIR.

8. In terms of the settlement between the parties it was agreed that Mr.
Neeraj shall pay a total sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondent no.2 towards
full and final settlement of all her claims on account of streedhan,
permanent alimony, dowry articles, maintenance (past, present and future)

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 26/02/2024 at 21:59:55
etc. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- has already been paid by
Mr. Neeraj to the respondent no.2 at the time of recording of statement in
the first motion petition. The balance amount shall be payable by Mr. Neeraj
at the stage of recording of statement in the second motion petition.

9. It is also a term of the settlement that the respondent no. 2 shall
cooperate for the quashing of the aforesaid FIR.

10. The respondent no.2, on a query put by the Court, states that she has
no objection in case the FIR is quashed.

11. At this stage, apt would it be to refer to the observations of the
Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303:

(SCC p. 340, para 58)
“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.”

12. A coordinate bench of this court in ‘Rifakat Ali Ors Vs. State
Anr.’ [CRL.M.C. No. 599/2021, decided on 26.02.2021] after referring to
three decisions of the Supreme Court, has taken a view that an offence under
Section 377 IPC, is though a heinous offence, but where such an offence is
invoked in a matrimonial dispute and where the parties have decided to part
ways and move ahead in their lives without acrimony against each other,
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised even for an offence under
Section 377 IPC on the ground that the dispute is private in nature. The

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 26/02/2024 at 21:59:56
material part of the said decision reads as under:-

“….10. A perusal of the three judgments which shows that the
Supreme Court has consistently held that the power under
Section 482 CrPC should not be used for quashing heinous and
serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity etc. since these offences are not private in nature
and have a serious impact in society. An offence under Section
377 IPC is a heinous offence and points to the mental depravity
of the accused and hence ought not to be quashed by the High
Court on the basis of compromise by exercising its jurisdiction
under Section 482 CrPC.

11. The present case arises out of matrimonial dispute and the
allegation has been made by the wife against the husband. The
parties have decided to part ways and get ahead in their lives
without having any acrimony against each other. In the facts
and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to exercise
its powers under Section 482 CrPC even for an offence under
Section 377 IPC on the ground that the dispute is private in
nature.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance
on orders of this Court in CRL.M.C.830/2019 titled as Dinesh
Kumar Ors. v. State Anr., CRL.M.C.1613/2019 titled as
Anmol Katyal Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) Anr., CRL.M.C.
5216/2018 titled as Gajender Singh Ors. v. State (NCT of
Delhi) Ors. and CRL.M.C. 4117/2018 titled as Joginder
Singh Bote Ors. v. NCT of Delhi Anr. In all these cases
wife has levelled allegation of the husband committing an
offence under Section 377 IPC. This Court has exercised its
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and has quashed the FIRs
on the basis of the compromise entered into between the
husband and wife.

13. It is made clear that this Court is exercising its powers
under Section 482 CrPC to quash an offence of Section 377 IPC
on the ground that the parties have compromised the matter
with each other only because it arises out of a matrimonial

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 26/02/2024 at 21:59:56
dispute, the allegation has been levelled by wife against her
husband of committing an offence under Section 377 IPC and
the parties have decided to move ahead in life.”…

13. The analogy in aforesaid decision squarely applies to offence under
Section 376 IPC invoked in the present case, inasmuch as, the present case is
an offshoot of a matrimonial dispute and the husband and wife (respondent
no. 2) have resolved all their matrimonial disputes amicably and have
decided to move ahead in life.

14. Considering the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement and
have started staying together, no useful purpose will be served in continuing
the proceedings, rather the same would create further acrimony between
them.

15. It is, thus, in the interest of justice that the present FIR and all the
other proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed.

16. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR No.151/2020 under
Sections 376/354/509 IPC registered at Police Station Mandir Marg
alongwith all other proceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed.

17. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

18. Order be uploaded on the website of this court.

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J
FEBRUARY 22, 2024
N.S. ASWAL

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 26/02/2024 at 21:59:56