Rishab Jain & Ors vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr

R.K.GAUBA , J

The second respondent was married to the first petitioner as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 26.02.2009. On 07.10.2011, she lodged first

information report (FIR) no.291/2011 with police station Preet Vihar alleging offences punishable under Section 498A, 406, 34 of Indian Penal Code,

1860 (IPC) against her husband (first petitioner), his mother (second petitioner) and his father (third petitioner). On conclusion of the investigation,

police filed report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) on which cognizance was taken, the said matter being pending

on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate.  The parties were referred to Delhi Mediation Centre at Kakardooma District Courts where they

agreed to amicably resolve the matter by entering into a settlement dated 16.08.2014 in terms of which the parties were to approach, as per the

timelines indicated, 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 Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 Cr. PC seeking quashing of

the FIR 291/11 under Sections 406, 498A, 34 IPC of Police Station Preet Vihar. Â

The second respondent on being served with the notice has appeared with counsel. She has submitted an affidavit during the course of hearing

annexing thereto copy of her driving licence as the proof of her identity. In the said affidavit, she has confirmed that she has settled all the disputes

with the petitioners in terms of the settlement dated 16.08.2014 out of her own free will and volition, without any pressure or coercion. At the

hearing, both sides confirmed that the parties have already moved the Family Court by two separate petitions one after the other on the basis of which

their marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce.

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 :Â

“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€​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 noncompoundable 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€​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 692, it 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€​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 :-Â

“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 noncompoundable, 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. 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€​ 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.Â

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.Â

The crime registered by the police vide FIR 291/2011 under Sections 406, 498A, 34 IPC of Police Station Preet Vihar and the proceedings emanating

therefrom are hereby quashed.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Dasti to both sides.