SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shadab Khan & Ors vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 18 July, 2019

$~3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 18th July, 2019

+ CRL.M.C. 248/2019 and Crl. M.A. 1060/2019

SHADAB KHAN ORS ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sanobar Ali, Advocate

versus

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI ANR ….. Respondents
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for
State with SI Dharmender, PS Ranjit Nagar
Mr. S.F.Ahmad, Advocate for R-2
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

ORDER (ORAL)

1. The second respondent was married to the first petitioner as per
Muslim Rights and Ceremonies on 01.03.2015. From out of the said
wedlock, a male child named Mohammad took birth on 18.12.2015.
The marriage ran into rough weather, the second respondent raised
allegations of she having been subjected to cruelty and deprived of her
stridhan, first information report (FIR) no.36/2018 having been
registered on 19.01.2018 by police station Ranjit Nagar on her
complaint involving offences punishable under Sections 498A, Section406,
Section34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (SectionIPC), the case being directed against

Crl. M.C. No.248/2019 Page 1 of 7
her husband (first petitioner), his mother (second petitioner), his uncle
(third petitioner) and brother-in-law (fourth petitioner). The case
arising out of the FIR is still pending investigation with the police.

2. It appears that the dispute between the parties also led to two
other cases being preferred, both by the second respondent one under
Section 12 of the Protection of Women from SectionDomestic Violence Act,
2005 and the other under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC). The second said case came to be dismissed
in default on 19.07.2018. Be that as it may, the parties were referred
to Delhi Mediation Centre at Tis Hazari courts in the context of the
case (CC no.398/2012) arising out of the domestic violence petition
where they agreed to settle the matter amicably by executing a
settlement deed dated 06.12.2018, copy whereof has been filed with
the petition.

3. On notice, the second respondent has entered appearance
through counsel and has submitted her affidavit sworn on 14.05.2019.
By the said affidavit, she confirms the settlement of the dispute with
the first petitioner and others, the parties having already ended their
marriage by a divorce as per Muslim law on 19.12.2018, she having
already withdrawn petition under SectionDomestic Violence Act having
received at that stage, Rs.5 Lakh from the first petitioner, this being
the first instalment of the total amount of Rs.10 Lakhs which she has
agreed to receive to forgo the cases and towards her full and final
claim including on account of maintenance, dower, etc.

Crl. M.C. No.248/2019 Page 2 of 7

4. It appears there was some dispute over custody and control of a
motor vehicle (car) which the second respondent has confirmed has
been handed over to her by the first petitioner. In terms of the
settlement, the first petitioner is to pay Rs.10 Lakhs to the second
respondent, she having already received half of the said amount, the
balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) has been
handed over to her in the form of a demand draft bearing no.131291
dated 15.07.2019 drawn on Canara Bank in her name and the same
having been received by her.

5. Having regard to the above, the court takes on record the no
objection to the quashing petition as confirmed by the second
respondent at the hearing.

6. 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.

7. 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 SectionYashpal

Crl. M.C. No.248/2019 Page 3 of 7
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.248/2019 Page 4 of 7

(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.248/2019 Page 5 of 7
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.248/2019 Page 6 of 7

8. 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.

9. The case at hand passes the muster of the above-noted tests.

10. In the above facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed.
The crime registered by the police vide FIR 36/2018 under Sections
406, Section498A, Section34 IPC of Police Station Ranjit Nagar and the proceedings
emanating therefrom against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

11. The petition and the application filed therewith are disposed of
accordingly.

Dasti to both sides.

R.K.GAUBA, J.

JULY 18, 2019/yg

Crl. M.C. No.248/2019 Page 7 of 7

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