SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Radhey Shyam vs State & Anr on 28 February, 2020

$~59
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1128/2020
RADHEY SHYAM ….. Petitioner
Through Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate
versus
STATE ANR ….. Respondents
Through Ms.Neelam Sharma, APP for State
with SI Sahansar Vir, PS Krishna
Nagar
Mr.Harmesh Kumar, Advocate along
with Respondent No.2 in person.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ORDER

% 28.02.2020
Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks the quashing of
the FIR No.360/2016, PS Krishna Nagar registered under Sections
498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 submitting to the effect
that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties at the Delhi
Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts and the marriage between the
Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 has since been dissolved by a
decree of divorce through mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of
HMA No.1490/19 dated 21.10.2019 of the Court of Principal Judge,
Family Courts, East District, the certified copy of which decree is on
the record as Ex.CW2/D and that no useful purpose would be served
by the continuation of the proceedings in relation to the FIR in
question.

The Investigating Officer of the case has identified the
petitioner present in Court today as being the sole accused
CRL.M.C. 1128/2020 page 1 of 7
chargesheeted in relation to the allegations under Sections 498A/406
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 qua FIR No.360/2016 PS Krishna
Nagar with all other 6 accused persons having been arrayed in column
No.12 of the chargesheet and has also identified Respondent no.2
Mrs. Trishla present in Court today as being the complainant of the
said FIR.

The respondent no.2 has produced her original proof of
identity, copy of which is on the record as Ex.CW2/A. The respondent
no.2 in her examination on oath by the Court has affirmed having
signed her affidavit annexed to the petition Ex.CW2/B and the
mediation settlement Ex.CW2/C voluntarily of her own accord
without any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter. She has
further stated that the marriage between her and the Petitioner has
since been dissolved vide a decree of divorce under Section 13B(2) of
HMA No.1490/19 dated 21.10.2019 of the Court of Principal Judge,
Family Courts, East District, the certified copy of which decree is on
the record as Ex.CW2/D.

She states that there is a child named Bhawna born out of the
wedlock between her and the Petitioner and that the child is in her
custody. She further states that in terms of the settlement arrived at
between her and the Petitioner, a total sum of Rs.2,20,000/- had been
agreed to be paid to her by the petitioner towards all her claims of
which a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- has been received by her previously
during the proceedings under Section 13B(1) and 13B(2) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 and the balance sum of Rs.60,000/- has been
CRL.M.C. 1128/2020 page 2 of 7
handed over to her by the petitioner today during the course of
present proceedings vide a Demand Draft No.195724 dated
27.02.2020 drawn on Punjab Sind Bank in her favour, copy of
which is Ex.CW2/E and states that there are now no claims of hers
left against the petitioners, and thus, she does not oppose the prayer
made by the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR No.360/2016 PS
Krishna Nagar, registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, nor does she want the petitioner to be punished in
relation thereto and states that she has so stated voluntarily after
understanding the implications of her statement made by her.

On behalf of the State and in view of the testimony of the
Respondent No.2 and the settlement arrived at between the parties,
there is no opposition to the prayer made by the petitioner seeking the
quashing of the FIR in question except qua the averments in para 2 of
the mediation settlement dated 25.09.2018, copy of which is on the
record as Ex.CW2/C.

In as much as the FIR in question has emanated from a
matrimonial discord which has since been resolved vide dissolution of
the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent no.2, it is
considered appropriate to put a quietus to the litigation and disputes
between the parties qua the FIR in question for maintenance of peace
and harmony between them as also for the well being of the
respondent no.2, in terms of the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Narender Singh Ors. V. State of Punjab; (2014) 6 SCC 466
CRL.M.C. 1128/2020 page 3 of 7
wherein it has been observed vide paragraph 31(IV) to the effect:
“31. 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:

(I) ……..

(II) ……..

(III) ……..

(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly 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.
……………….”

and in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian
Singh vs. State of Punjab Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, to the effect : –

“58………………………. 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
CRL.M.C. 1128/2020 page 4 of 7
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.” [Refer to B.S.
Joshi, (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant, (2008) 9 SCC 677
and Manoj Sharma, (2008) 16 SCC 1.]”

and in view of the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jitendra
Raghuvanshi Ors. Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi Anr. (2013) 4 SCC 58, to
the effect : –

“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. They institution of marriage occupies an
CRL.M.C. 1128/2020 page 5 of 7
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….”

(emphasis supplied),
the FIR No.374/2005, PS Krishna Nagar registered under Sections
498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all consequential
proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner are quashed.

It is made expressly clear that though vide clause (2) of the mediation
settlement dated 25.09.2018, copy of which is on the record as Ex.CW2/C, it
has been agreed between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 to the
effect:-

“2.It has been agreed between the parties that the husband shall pay
Rs.2,20,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Twenty Thousand Only) to the wife
and daughter as full and final settlement of all her claims such as
maintenance (past, present and future), istridhan, dowry articles,
jewellery, permanent alimony, etc.”

whereby the total sum of Rs.2,20,000/- agreed to be paid by the
Petitioner to the Respondent No.2 which has since already been paid as
CRL.M.C. 1128/2020 page 6 of 7
stated by the Respondent No.2 has been agreed to be paid as full and final
settlement of all the claims of the Respondent No.2 qua maintenance past,
present and future, stridhan, dowry articles, jewellery and permanent
alimony, etc. This clause also states that it is towards the payment made to
the daughter as well qua maintenance past, present and future which term is
not in consonance with the law laid down in terms of the verdict of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal 4031-4032/2019 arising out of SLP
(C) Nos.32868-32869/2018 titled as Ganesh Vs. Sudhirkumar Shrivastava
Ors. vide the verdict dated 22.04.2019 as adhered to and followed by this
Court in Rakesh Jain Ors. vs. State Anr. in CRL.M.C. 2935/2019
dated 06.09.2019.

In the circumstances, it is made expressly clear that the quashing of
the FIR in question shall not amount to any embargo on the minor child
Bhawna born out of the wedlock between the Petitioner and the Respondent
No.2 seeking her claims against the Petitioner qua maintenance or otherwise
in accordance with law.

The petition is disposed of.

ANU MALHOTRA, J
FEBRUARY 28, 2020/sg

CRL.M.C. 1128/2020 page 7 of 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI

59
CRL.M.C. 1128/2020
SHRI RADHEY SHYAM Vs. STATE ANR
28.02.2020

CW-l SI Sahansar Vir, PS Krishna Nagar.

ON S.A.

I identify the petitioner present in Court today as being the sole
accused chargesheeted in relation to the allegations under Sections
498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 qua FIR No.360/2016 PS
Krishna Nagar with all other 6 accused persons having been arrayed in
column No.12 of the chargesheet. I also identify respondent no.2 Mrs.
Trishla present in Court today as being the complainant of the said FIR.

RO AC ANU MALHOTRA, J
28.02.2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
59
CRL.M.C. 1128/2020
SHRI RADHEY SHYAM Vs. STATE ANR
28.02.2020

CW-2 Ms. Trishla D/o Shri Ram Prakash W/o Shri Radhey Shyam R/o
X/3720/11, Gali No.8, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031.

ON S.A.

I have brought my original proof of identity, copy of which is on the
record as Ex.CW2/A (original seen and returned). My affidavit annexed to
the petition bears my signatures thereon at points A B thereon on
Ex.CW2/B. A settlement dated 25.09.2018 has since been arrived at
between me and the petitioner at the Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi and copy of the same bears my signatures at point A on
Ex.CW2/C.

I have signed these documents voluntarily of my own accord without
any duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter.

The marriage between me and the Petitioner has since been dissolved
vide a decree of divorce under Section 13B(2) of HMA No.1490/19 dated
21.10.2019 of the Court of Principal Judge, Family Courts, East District, the
certified copy of which decree is on the record as Ex.CW2/D.

In terms of the settlement arrived at between me and the Petitioner, a
total sum of Rs.2,20,000/- had been agreed to be paid to me by the petitioner
towards my all claims of which a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- has been received by
me previously during the proceedings under Section 13B(1) and 13B(2) of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the balance sum of Rs.60,000/- has been
handed over to me by the petitioner today during the course of the present
proceedings vide a Demand Draft No.195724 dated 27.02.2020 drawn on
Punjab Sind Bank in my favour, copy of which is Ex.CW2/E. There are
now no claims of mine left against the petitioners. In view of the settlement
arrived at between me and the petitioner, I do not oppose the prayer made by
the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR No.360/2016 PS Krishna Nagar,
registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, nor
do I want the petitioner to be punished in relation thereto.

I have studied upto 10th Standard. I have made my statement after
understanding its implications voluntarily of my own accord without any
duress, coercion or pressure from any quarter.

RO AC ANU MALHOTRA, J
28.02.2020

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