Harender Singh vs State & Anr

The second respondent was married to the petitioner as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 30.11.2008. On 09.08.2010, she lodged first information

report (FIR) no. 267/2010 with police station Madhu Vihar alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

(IPC) against her husband (the petitioner) and two of his relatives namely Om Biri and Rajpal Singh. On conclusion of investigation, police filed report

under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) on which cognizance was taken and process issued against the petitioner, the

said mater being pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate. It is pointed out from the record, as confirmed by the learned additional public

prosecutor, that the other two persons namely Om Biri and Rajpal Singh were not sent up for prosecution. The parties entered into a compromise

statedly through the process of mediation whereby it was agreed that they would approach the appropriate forum for obtaining a decree of divorce,

they also having agreed, inter alia, for the criminal case arising out of the aforementioned FIR to be sought to be quashed.

The petition, thus, has been moved before this court invoking Section 482 Cr.P.c. seeking quashing of the FIR 267/2010 under Sections 406, 498A,

34 IPC of police station Madhu Vihar.

The second respondent (the complainant of the case) has appeared in response to the notice on the petition and in terms of the directions given on

the previous date, she has submitted affidavit, which has been filed in the registry today. Along with the said affidavit, she has placed on record self-

attested photocopy of the aadhar card. In the affidavit, she has affirmed that she has received all the payments as per the settlement and that she has

no objection to the FIR being quashed.

The copies of the proceedings recorded by the Principal Judge, Family Courts for Shahdara District in HMA case no. 980/2014 which have been

submitted, include statement of the second respondent by which she confirmed that the parties had agreed to part ways amicably, the petitioner paying

to her and she agreeing to receive from him as full and final settlement of her claims the total amount of Rs. 70,000/-. Out of the said amount of Rs.

70,000/-, Rs. 30,000/- was paid before the Family Court, the balance being payable at the time of quashing of the FIR. The proceedings recorded on

22.01.2018 on the petition at hand confirm that the balance amount of Rs. 40,000/- has also since been paid to the second respondent by the petitioner.

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.

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, was examined by the Supreme Court in B.S.

Joshi and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr., (2003) 4 SCC 675, against the backdrop of a catena of earlier decisions. Noting, with reference to the

decision in State of Karnakata Vs. L Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699, that in exercise of this “inherent†and “wholesome powerâ€, the

touchstone is as to whether “the ends of justice so requireâ€​, and it was observed thus :

“10. ... that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution

rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends

of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature.

...that the compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provision which

seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width

and contours of that salient jurisdiction.â€​

(emphasis supplied)

The Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi (supra) further noted as under :-

“What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier

noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There

may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other

family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted

company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on the earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties

or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would it then be

proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences? The

answer clearly has to be in the “negativeâ€. It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for

any valid reasons including lack of bona fides.â€​

(emphasis supplied)

Holding that “special features in ...matrimonial matters are evident†and that it is “the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of

matrimonial disputesâ€, referring to Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojiroo Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 6,9 i2t was

further observed that :

“11. ... Where, in the opinion of the court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by

allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceedings.â€​

(emphasis supplied)

In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court contrasted the request for quashing of criminal proceedings on

the basis of settlement with the possibility of compounding of an offence and observed thus :-

“57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as

compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under

Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding

of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby

while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is

guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be

acquittal or dismissal of indictment.â€​

(emphasis supplied)

The above views in the context of matrimonial disputes resulting in criminal proceedings have been consistently followed over

the years, as may be further illustrated by the decision of a bench of three Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Ors.

Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and Anr., (2013) 4 SCC 58, the following observations summarising the philosophy succinctly :-

“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.

There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an 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...â€​

(emphasis supplied)

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.

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

In the above facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed. The crime registered by the police vide FIR 267/2010 under Sections 406, 498A, 34

IPC of Police Station Madhu Vihar and the proceedings emanating therefrom against the petitioner are hereby quashed.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Dasti.