IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Crl. M.C. No. 8384-88/2006

22.10.2007
Date of Decision: 22nd October, 2007

Khush Chaddha and Ors.
.....Petitioners
Through Mr. Anirudh Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners


versus


$ State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. .....
Respondents
Through Mr. O.P. Saxena, Advocate for the State.
Mr. M. Hussain, Advocate for Respondent no. 2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?(No)
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?(No)
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?(No)

JUDGMENT

P.K.BHASIN, J:
The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ?Cr.P.C.?) for quashing of FIR No.
349/1999 under Sections 498-A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code (?I.P.C.? in short)
and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered at Police Station Shahdara
on 01.12.2000 and the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom pending trial in
the Court of Ms. Anuradha Shukla, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.
2.The relevant facts are that the marriage between petitioner no. 1 and
respondent no. 2 was solemnized as per Hindu rituals and customs on 20.04.1988.
Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are brothers-in-law, petitioner no. 4 is mother-in-law
and petitioner no. 5 is sister-in-law of respondent no. 2. After the marriage
between the petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 disputes arose between
respondent no. 2 and her in-laws which led to the registration of an FIR under
Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC at Shahdara police station at the behest of respondent


no. 2. In her complaint to the police the respondent no. 2 had made
allegations of torture to her by the petitioners for not fulfilling their
demands of dowry. The police did the investigation and then filed a charge-sheet
in the concerned Court against the petitioners where trial is stated to be going
on.
3.During the pendency of the said criminal case, the complainant and the
petitioners resolved their disputes and arrived at an amicable settlement as
regards the maintenance, stridhan/dowry articles etc. The copy of agreement
dated 05.04.2006 has been annexed with this petition. The petitioner no. 1 and
respondent no. 2 herein, as it can be seen from the petition itself, have
already sought divorce by way of mutual consent.
4. Since the offences for which the petitioners were being prosecuted were not
compoundable as per the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C the present petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioners. Notice of the petition
was sent to the State and respondent no.2-complainant. Respondent no. 2 appeared
in person along with a counsel on 10.10.2007 before this Court and she affirmed
that the disputes have been amicably resolved and so she was no more interested
in pursuing her case against any of the petitioners. She supported the prayer of
the petitioners for quashing of the FIR also by filing her affidavit. She also
affirmed the terms of settlement which have been written in black and white in
the agreement dated 05.04.2006. Learned APP for the State also did not oppose
the petition in view of the settlement between the complainant and her in-laws.
5.In support of the prayer made in the petition for quashing of the FIR, learned
counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon?ble
Supreme Court in ?B.S.Joshi and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr.?, AIR 2003 SC
1386. That was also a case under Sections 498-A/323/406 IPC and during the
pendency of criminal proceedings the disputes between the parties were settled.
Petition was filed in the High Court for quashing of the FIR but that petition
was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the offences under Sections
498-A and 406 IPC being non-compoundable the inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. could not be invoked to bypass the mandatory provisions of Section 320
Cr.P.C. While reversing the decision of the High Court the Hon?ble Supreme
Court observed that ?if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice,
quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the
exercise of power of quashing.? It was also observed that in case of matrimonial
disputes it becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of
matrimonial disputes. In paras no. 13 and 14 of the judgment it was observed as
under:-
?13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different
context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad and Ors. are very apt for determining the
approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the courts, it
was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent
times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony the main purpose of which is to enable
the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little
matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions
resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also
involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about
rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the
criminal case. There are many other reason which need not be mentioned here
for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over
their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead
of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude
and in that process the parties lose their ?young? days in chasing their ?cases?
in different courts.
14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing
Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by
her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view


to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to
coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper
technical view pwould be counter productive and would act against interests of
women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is
every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to
meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is
not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.?
After observing so, the Hon?ble Supreme Court quashed the FIR in view of the
fact that the matrimonial dispute between the parties in that case had been
amicably resolved.
7. The complainant in the present case, as noticed already, has herself
admitted before this Court that because of the settlement of the disputes with
the petitioners she is no more interested in the prosecution of the petitioners
pursuant to the FIR got registered by her. Thus, in view of the afore-quoted
views of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi?s case (supra) the FIR
registered at the instance of respondent no. 2-complainant against the
petitioners deserves to be quashed since the parties have amicably resolved
their disputes.
8. This petition is accordingly allowed and consequently FIR No. 349/1999
registered at Police Station Shahara on 01.12.2000 under Sections 498A/406/34
IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the criminal proceedings
arising therefrom pending trial in the court of Ms. Anuradha Shukla,
Metropolitan Magistrate is hereby quashed.

P.K.BHASIN,J
October 22, 2007
sh