Jagdish v. State & Anr

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. JULY 15, 2014 AK

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + JAGDISH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. K.B. Sachdeva, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus STATE & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, APP for the State with SI Pratap Singh, PS Punjabi Bagh. Mr. Jagvir Bhadana, Advocate for R- 2 with R-2 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (ORAL) Crl. M.A. 10528/2014 (for exemption) Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed off. CRL.M.C. 3036/2014 and Crl. M.A. 10527/2014 (for stay) 1. This petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by Sh. Jagdish praying that FIR No.200/2007 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh and the proceedings emanating therefrom be quashed. 2. FIR No. 200/2007 was registered on the complaint of Smt. Manju, who is arrayed as respondent No.2 to these proceedings, stating that she was married to the petitioner, Shri Jagdish, and further raising allegations attracting the provisions of Section 498A/406/34 IPC. 3. The charge sheet in the matter is stated to have been filed and the matter is now fixed for the complainant's evidence. 4. Further a perusal of the order dated 22nd February, 2012 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate shows that charge under Section 498A IPC was framed against the petitioner alone. All the other accused persons, namely, Munni Devi, Meenakshi, Vijay and Hanuman, who are mother-in- law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law and father-in-law, respectively, were discharged. 5. It is stated that the matter has since been compromised and settled between the petitioner and respondent No.2. Further, the parties have also obtained a divorce by mutual consent in HMA No. 78/2013 in terms of the judgment dated 27.02.2013, certified copy whereof has also been annexed to this petition. The said divorce was also based on a settlement arrived at between the parties. A joint statement incorporating the terms of settlement that was recorded in the first motion proceedings on 5th July, 2012 before Family Courts, has also been annexed. In terms of the said agreement, the petitioner had undertaken to give total amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in three equal instalments whilst the second respondent had also undertaken not to claim any maintenance and also to withdraw all other pending proceedings. It was also agreed that the custody of the children will remain with respondent No.2/complainant. It is also stated that in terms of the aforesaid settlement, respondent No.2 has already received Rs.1,00,000/-. The remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/- has been handed over to her in Court today in the following manner: (i) Rs.10,000/- in cash. (ii) Rs.40,000/- by way of Bankers Cheque dated 4th July, 2014 bearing No. 319540 drawn on State Bank of India, East Patel Nagar Branch. 6. Respondent No.2, who is present in person, who is identified by her counsel, also affirms all these facts and states that she has no further claim in the matter, and that she is not interested in pursuing the proceedings, and that the same be brought to an end. 7. Counsel for the State also submits that no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the proceedings. 8. Consequently, and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, which has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a non- compoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and the victim, if the circumstances so warrant. 9. The Supreme Court has also held in Narinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2014(2) Crimes 27 (SC) as follows:- "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 Sec