IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Crl. M.C. No. 4827-32/2006
22.10.2007
Date of Decision: 22nd October, 2007
Vinod Kumar Sharma and Ors. .....Petitioners
Through Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners


versus

$ The State and Another ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Pawan Behl, APP for the State.
Ms. Kalpana, Advocate for the Complainant.
Complainant in person.

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:

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as ?Cr.P.C.?) has been filed for quashing of FIR No.
887/2004 under Sections 406/498A of Indian Penal Code (?I.P.C.? in short),
registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh on 20.11.2003 and also the criminal


proceedings emanating therefrom pending in the Court of Ms. Barkha Gupta,
Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
2. The relevant facts are that the marriage between petitioner no. 1 and
respondent no. 2 was solemnized according to Hindu customs on 05.12.2002.
Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are parents-in-law, petitioner nos. 4 and 5 are jeth and
jethani and petitioner no. 6 is the sister-in-law of the respondent no. 2
herein. 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 IPC at Punjabi Bagh 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 above said criminal proceedings in Court,
the complainant and the petitioners have amicably resolved their disputes and
arrived at an amicable settlement as regards maintenance, stri dhan/dowry
articles etc. Copy of the compromise deed has been annexed with this petition as
Annexure ? A. Thereafter a petition under Section 13 B(2) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 seeking divorce by mutual consent was instituted by the petitioner no.
1 and respondent no.2. The learned Additional District Judge vide judgment
dated 05.04.2006 in H.M.A. Case No. 123/2006 has dissolved their marriage by a
decree of divorce. Copy of that judgment has also been placed on record.
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 for quashing the
FIR and the resultant criminal proceedings pending in Court. Notice of the
petition was sent to respondent no.2-complainant. She appeared in person along
with a counsel on 03-10-2007 before this Court and she also affirmed that
disputes had 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 and the criminal proceedings pending in
Court. She also admitted that her marriage with petitioner has been dissolved
through a petition for divorce by mutual consent. Learned APP for the State
had submitted that since the parties had compromised amicably the State had
nothing to say in the matter.
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 provision 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. MANU/SC/0156/2000 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
hypertechnical view would 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 had been amicably
resolved.
6. 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 as well
as the criminal trial arising out of the said FIR deserve to be quashed since
the parties have amicably resolved their disputes.
7. This petition is accordingly allowed and consequently FIR bearing No.
887/2004 under Sections 406/498A registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh and
the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom pending in the Court of Ms. Barkha
Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini, Delhi, are hereby quashed.


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