SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Prakash Saini & Ors vs State & Anr on 23 March, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1044/2017
Date of Hearing Order: March 23rd, 2017

PRAKASH SAINI ORS ….. Petitioner
Through Mr.Anil Garg, Adv. with petitioners in
person.
versus

STATE ANR ….. Respondent

                           Through      Mr.M.S. Oberoi, APP with SI Sareen
                                        Kharb, PS Dwarka South.
                                        Respondent no.2 in person.


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
       P.S.TEJI, J.(Oral)

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by
the petitioners, namely, Sh. Parkash Saini and others for quashing of
FIR No.570/2014, under Section 498A/406/506/354D/34 IPC
registered at Police Station South Dwarka, Delhi on the basis of an
amicable settlement between the petitioners and respondent No. 2
namely, Smt. Shilpa Saini.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
submitted that the respondent present in the Court has been identified
to be the complainant in the criminal complaint in question.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the complainant in

Crl.M.C. 1044/2017 Page 1 of 7
the present matter (Respondent No.2) got married to the
accused/petitioner on 22.05.2013 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.
The complainant’s family got to know about the accused/petitioner
and his family through a matrimonial site, and upon talking with them,
they stressed on giving a car on the occasion of marriage, specifying
on a “big car”, namely “Toyota Fortuner”. Prior to the marriage, the
accused used to consistenly talk with the complainant and would also
inquire about the nature of preparations towards the marriage , with
specific focus on whether the said car was booked or not. When the
complainant informed the accused that the said car was outside the
budget of her parents, the accused cut the phone call and turned sour.
After the marriage also, the complainant/respondent No.2 has been
subjected to constant taunts, humiliation and physical assault on
account of non fulfillment of the demand of a car. The accused also
indulged in unnatural sexual intercourse with the complainant on
several occasions despite her resistance. The complainant/Respondent
No.2 also found out about an illicit extra marital affair of the accused
and when she questioned the same she was asked to keep quiet and
bear with the said fact. On 17/10/2013, the accused after coming back
from work started beating the complainant without any reason and
threw her out of the house stating that she should be back only when
her father gave them a “big car”. Despite efforts by the complainant’s
family to settle matter amicably, the accused and his family did not
agree and continued with harassment. The co-accused in the present
matter harassed the complainant frequently while she went to work.
The accused also used to harass her by sending vulgar messages on

Crl.M.C. 1044/2017 Page 2 of 7
her mobile and also to her family members.

The complainant after the above series of events got registered the
complaint in the present matter.

4. Respondent No.2 present in the Court submitted that the dispute
between the parties has been amicably resolved with the
accused/petitioners. Respondent affirmed the contents of the aforesaid
settlement. All the disputes and differences have been resolved
through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives and
so, the proceedings arising out of the criminal complaint in question
may be brought to an end. Statement of the respondent has been
recorded in this regard in which she stated that she has entered into a
compromise deed with the petitioners and has settled all the disputes
with him. She further stated that she has no objection if the criminal
complaint in question is quashed.

5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in
cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-

“61. 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 proceedings
or continuation of criminal proceedings 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 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 proceedings.”

6. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a
recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC

Crl.M.C. 1044/2017 Page 3 of 7

466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh
(Supra) are as under:-

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up
and lay down the following principles by which the
High Court would be guided in giving adequate
treatment to the settlement between the parties and
exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code
while accepting the settlement and quashing the
proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with
direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code
is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the
Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of
the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code,
the High Court has inherent power to quash the
criminal proceedings even in those cases which are
not compoundable, where the parties have settled the
matter between themselves. However, this power is to
be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement
and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal
proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases
would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form
an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those
prosecutions which involve heinous and serious
offences of mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in
nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly,
for the offences alleged to have been committed under
special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act
or the offences committed by public servants while
working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely
on the basis of compromise between the victim and
the offender.

Crl.M.C. 1044/2017 Page 4 of 7

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character,
particularly those arising out of commercial
transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship
or family disputes should be quashed when the parties
have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

7. The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised to
prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
The respondent agreed to the quashing of the criminal complaint in
question and stated that the matter has been settled out of her own free
will. As the matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so,
there would be an extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal
proceedings between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the
considered opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and
to secure the ends of justice.

8. The incorporation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provision
of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is
abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured; where
the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid the
causing of harassment to any person by using the provision of Cr.P.C.
or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery of justice.
Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent the
express provisions of law.

9. It is a settled law that the inherent power of the High Court

Crl.M.C. 1044/2017 Page 5 of 7
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v.
Vikram Anatrai Doshi and Ors
. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the
case of Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal
MANU/SC/0808/2009 has observed that powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution.
Only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be
manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the Court
if such power is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.

10. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced
that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not
affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of
such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace
and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them.
In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and
energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in
entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is
compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S.
Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another
2003 (4) SCC 675
the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of
Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not
compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of
securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR/Criminal complaint
becomes necessary, section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the

Crl.M.C. 1044/2017 Page 6 of 7
exercise of power of quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon’ble Apex
Court justified the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to
quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the
special facts and circumstances of the case, even where the offences
were non-compoundable.

In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that
notwithstanding the fact the offence under Section 354D is a non-
compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing the
FIR/Criminal complaint under this section, if the Court is otherwise
satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.

11. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of
statement made by the respondent, the Criminal Complaint in question
warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon
need to be quashed.

12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.570/2014,
under Section 498A/406/506/354D/34 IPC registered at Police Station
Dwarka South, Dwarka, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating
therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.

13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.

(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
MARCH 23rd, 2017
dd

Crl.M.C. 1044/2017 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

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

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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