[ad_1]
Delhi High Court – Orders
Sh. Vijay @ Vijay Kumar & Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 21 April, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~69
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 264/2025, CRL.M.A. 1355/2025
SH. VIJAY @ VIJAY KUMAR & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Appearance not given.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Baisla, Mr. Hemant Kr.
Niranjan and Ms. Neha Yadav,
Advocates for R-2 with R-2 in person.
Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for
State with Mr. Arun Kumar, SI and
Mr. Ramesh Kumar, ASI, PS-Prem
Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 21.04.2025
1. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.
308/2024 dated 30th May, 2024, registered at Police Station Prem Nagar for
offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,1 as
well as all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. This request is
made in light of the amicable settlement reached between the parties, as
evidenced by Agreement of Settlement executed before the Counselling
Cell, Family Courts, North West, Rohini, New Delhi, on 14th August 2024,
between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No.2/ Complainant. A copy of the
aforementioned Settlement Agreement has been duly placed on record.
2. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2025 at 22:10:03
solemnised on 1st February, 2017, however the parties eventually separated
on account of temperamental differences. The marriage has now been
dissolved through decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 23rd
November, 2024 issued by the Family Court, North West, Rohini Courts,
Delhi.
3. In terms of the Agreement for Settlement, Petitioner No. 1 had agreed
to pay a total sum of INR 3,75,000/- as well as one Bullet Motorcycle
(gifted to Petitioner No. 1 at the time of marriage) to Respondent No. 2. Of
the said amount, a sum of INR 1,00,000/- as well as the Bullet Motorcycle
was to be paid to Respondent No. 2 at the time of recording of first motion
for seeking divorce under Section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
A further sum of INR 1,50,000/- was to be paid to her at the time of
recording of statement of second motion. The remaining amount of INR
1,25,000/- was agreed to be paid to Respondent No. 2 at the time of
quashing of the impugned FIR. In this regard, the Petitioners have placed on
record a copy of the demand draft bearing DD No. 101673, for the sum of
1,25,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda dated 10th December, 2024. The
Petitioners submit that the entire settlement amount has been paid to
Respondent No. 2.
4. Respondent No. 2 is present through video conferencing, duly
identified by the IO as well as the counsel. She states that she has no
objections to the quashing of the FIR. An affidavit cum No Objection
Certificate to this effect has also been placed on record.
5. Before the Joint Registrar, on 17th January, 2025, Petitioner No. 1
gave the demand draft to Respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the statement of
1
“IPC”
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2025 at 22:10:03
Respondent No. 2 was record on the same day, wherein she affirmed receipt
of the entire settlement amount, the Bullet Motorcycle, her stridhan and
other articles. On 26th March, 2025, Respondent No. 2 appeared before the
Joint Registrar’s Court in person, and submitted that the DD had been duly
realised, and that she had no objections to the quashing of the impugned
FIR.
6. At this juncture, it is imperative to emphasise the Court’s power under
Section 482 of the CrPC to quash criminal proceedings pursuant to a
settlement between the parties. In this regard, the Supreme Court in
Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,2 has laid down certain
guidelines and parameters for the High Courts while accepting settlement
and quashing the proceedings:
“29. 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:
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be
distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the
offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482
of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal
proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where
the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this
power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis
petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding
factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on
either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which
2
(2014) 6 SCC 466.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2025 at 22:10:04
involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences
like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature
and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences
alleged to have been committed under special statute like the
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public
servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely
on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly
and predominantly 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.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to
whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to
him by not quashing the criminal cases.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
7. In view of the law discussed above as well as the settlement between
the parties, the Court is of the considered opinion that this matter deserves to
be given a quietus, as the continuation of the present proceedings would
serve no fruitful purpose, but rather only amount to an abuse of the judicial
process and impose an unwarranted burden on the State Exchequer.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 308/2024 dated 30th
May, 2024 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at P.S. Prem Nagar,
Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
9. The parties shall abide by the terms of settlement.
10. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Pending applications (if any)
are disposed of as infructuous.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
APRIL 21, 2025
nk
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/04/2025 at 22:10:04
[ad_2]
Source link