It is really good to learn that in a very significant, stimulating and so also refreshing, robust, rational and recent judgment titled Raja Berwa & Ors vs State & Anr in CRL.M.C. 2383/2014 and cited in 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 540 delivered just recently on April 12, 2022, the Delhi High Court has observed specifically that FIR or complaints can be quashed even in respect of non-compoundable offences pertaining to matrimonial disputes if the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled their disputes amicably, without any pressure. This is primarily so in order to ensure that the marriage does not break up even after the genuine settlement of the disputes between the parties. Of course, this is definitely a right step in the right direction.

Without mincing any words, the single Judge Bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that:
Even in non-compoundable offences pertaining to the matrimonial disputes, if Court is satisfied that parties have settled the disputes amicably and without any pressure, then for the purpose of securing ends of justice, FIRs or complaints or subsequent criminal proceedings in respect of offences can be quashed.

To start with, this extremely commendable, cogent, courageous, composed and creditworthy judgment authored by a single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Chandra Dhari Singh sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of FIR bearing No. 702/2006 registered at Police Station Mangol Puri, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter IPC) and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

As we see, the Bench then mentions in para 2 that:
Petitioner no. 1 is present before this Court and has been identified by their counsel Mr. Saurabh Kumar Tuteja and Investigating Officer SI Hawa Singh, Police Station Mangol Puri. Respondent No.2 is also present in the Court and has been identified by her counsel and the Investigating Officer.

Truth be told, the Bench then points out in para 3 that:
On the query made by this Court, respondent no. 2 has categorically stated that she has entered into compromise on her own free will and without any pressure. It is also stated by respondent no.2 that the entire dispute has been amicably settled between the parties.

To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 4 that:
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 got married to each other on 20th April, 2003 at Mangol Puri according to Hindu rites and ceremonies but due to some temperamental differences between them, they started living separately since May, 2005. There is one girl child born out of their wedlock, who is now major.

As it turned out, the Bench then reveals in para 5 that:
Despite several efforts of reconciliation, both the parties could not settle the differences. Respondent no. 2 lodged a complaint in C.A.W. Cell which culminated into the aforesaid FIR against all the petitioners on 27th September, 2006.

Fortunately enough, the Bench then discloses in para 6 that:
With the intervention of family members and relatives, both the parties entered into settlement before Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts.

Furthermore, the Bench then enunciates in para 7 that:
Further, in pursuance of the said settlement, the parties moved for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter HMA). Petitioner No.1 and respondent no.2 filed their first motion of the divorce petition under Section 13B(1) of HMA which was allowed on 31st August, 2021 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, North-West, Rohini, New Delhi. Petition under Section 13B(2) of HMA was filed by the parties and the marriage between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 stood dissolved by mutual consent vide order dated 10th December, 2021.

Going forward, the Bench then states in para 8 that:
It is submitted that respondent no.2 has settled all her claims in respect of her dowry articles, stridhan, marriage expenses, jewellery, gift items and claims of past, present and future maintenance and permanent alimony with petitioner No.1 and other family members for a sum of Rs. 15,50,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) and all disputes of any nature whatsoever, out of which Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) have already been paid while remaining Rs. 5,50,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) was agreed to be paid at the time of quashing of the FIR.

While going into the nitty gritty, the Bench then lays bare in para 9 stating that:
Petitioner no.1 has handed over a Demand Draft bearing No. 715854 for the balance amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) dated 3rd March, 2022 in the name of respondent no. 2 today in the Court. Respondent No.2 has verified the particulars of the Demand Draft to her satisfaction and stated them to be correct.

Be it noted, the Bench then notes in para 10 that:
It is prayed that the instant FIR be quashed on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding dated 12th March, 2021 and as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303.

Of course, the Bench then hastens to add in para 11 that:
Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, learned APP for the State submitted that there is no opposition to the prayer made by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR in question in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

Needless to say, the Bench then remarks in para 12 that:
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Most remarkably, the Bench then minces no words to clearly, cogently and convincingly hold in para 13 that:
The instant criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on the society especially when there is a settlement/compromise between victim and accused. In such cases, it is settled law that High Court is also required to consider the conduct and antecedents of the accused in order to ascertain that the settlement has been entered into by her own free will and has not been imposed upon her by the petitioner or any person related to him. In the present case, the complainant is present in Court and has categorically stated that she has entered into compromise and settled the entire disputes amicably with petitioner no.1 and his family members by her own free will without any pressure or coercion. There is also no allegation from respondent no. 2 that the conduct and antecedents of petitioners have been bad towards her after the compromise. As per the settlement, the respondent no. 2 has received the entire settled amount.

While citing the relevant case law, the Bench then expounds in para 14 that:
In the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if for purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of the power of quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Adding more to it, the Bench then most commendably holds in para 15 that, Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. vs. Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr. (2013) 4 SCC 58, has held that criminal proceedings on FIR or complaint can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in appropriate cases in order to meet ends of justice. Even in non-compoundable offences pertaining to the matrimonial disputes, if Court is satisfied that parties have settled the disputes amicably and without any pressure, then for the purpose of securing ends of justice, FIRs or complaints or subsequent criminal proceedings in respect of offences can be quashed.

What’s more, the Bench then while leaving no room for ambiguity of any kind directs in para 16 that:
In the instant case, as stated above, the parties have reached on the compromise and amicably settled the entire disputes without any pressure. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, FIR bearing No. 702/2006 registered at Police Station Mangol Puri, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

Finally, the Bench then aptly concludes by holding in para 17 that:
The petition stands disposed of.

In a nutshell, the single Judge Bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh has been quite forthright in coming to the ineluctable and palpable conclusion that FIR for non-compoundable offences can be quashed in matrimonial disputes if the Court is satisfied that parties have settled their disputes amicably. We have already discussed this hereinabove quite exhaustively along with relevant case laws also in this regard as stated in this notable judgment. No doubt, all the courts must definitely adhere to what the Delhi High Court has laid down in this case so very elegantly, eloquently and effectively! There can certainly be just no denying or disputing it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.