Delhi High Court: A petition was filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (‘CrPC’) read with Article 227 seeking to quash the First Information Report (‘FIR’) dated 14-06-2015 registered at by the respondent 2 at Police Station – Rohini under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Chandra Dhari Singh, J., dismissed the petition and cautioned that while exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC, the courts must refrain from interfering in genuine cases, especially where allegations are serious in nature, unless it is a clear case of abuse of process or if the complaint is frivolous or malicious.
The petitioner and respondent 2 were married in 2012, but tensions arose, leading to allegations of physical harassment against the respondent by the petitioner and his family. This culminated in the registration of the FIR. Between 2015 and 2017, several conciliation attempts were made, and the parties eventually settled their dispute through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 2016. They resumed cohabiting, resulting in the respondent’s pregnancy, and the respondent withdrew her complaint in 2017.
Despite the settlement, tensions resurfaced, and the respondent returned to her parents’ home. The Magistrate, through an order dated 05-12-2022, took cognizance of the matter and charged the petitioner under IPC. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner sought quashing of the FIR, citing the prior settlement and alleging that the respondent had reneged on her agreement.
The petitioner argued that no specific incidents of cruelty were detailed in the complaint to justify the invocation of Section 498A IPC and that the MoU resolved all disputes, including the respondent’s withdrawal of her complaint. The petitioner also contended that the respondent was now acting in bad faith by keeping the dispute alive.
On the contrary, the respondent opposed the petition, asserting that despite the MoU, she continued to suffer physical and verbal abuse at the hands of the petitioner and his family. She alleged that the petitioner was an alcoholic and frequently harassed her over dowry, leading to significant mental and physical distress. According to the respondent, her parents had spent over Rs. 1.5 crores on the wedding, but she was still mocked and abused for bringing insufficient dowry. The respondent further contended that the petitioner had taken advantage of the settlement, received financial benefits under the MOU, but failed to honor its terms, continuing the harassment.
The Court reviewed the submissions and noted that while the parties had indeed entered into an MoU to settle their disputes and sought mutual consent for a divorce, the respondent alleged continued cruelty. The respondent’s argument was that the MoU had become null and void as both parties reconciled and did not proceed with the divorce, and thus the petitioner could not rely on the MoU to quash the FIR. The respondent also emphasized that the petitioner had already taken back the settlement amount and further took away her earnings from an independent boutique she ran.
The Court, while considering the legal principles surrounding the quashing of criminal proceedings, highlighted that quashing an FIR based on a settlement differs from compounding an offence. Considering the evidence, including medical certificates from 2019 showing that the respondent continued to suffer physical abuse, the Court found the allegations credible. The respondent’s submissions and the material on record, including claims of harassment and assault after the settlement, led the court to conclude that the petitioner’s request for quashing could not be granted. The Court was particularly concerned about the societal impact of routinely quashing matrimonial disputes, especially when there were ongoing allegations of cruelty.
Thus, the Court held that while it has wide powers under Section 482 CrPC, these powers must be exercised cautiously. Given the serious nature of the allegations and the respondent’s opposition, the petition for quashing the FIR was not allowed, as doing so would not serve the ends of justice in this case.
[Rachit Jain v. GNCTD, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7272, decided on 18-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Sahil Gupta, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for State along with W/SI Sanju, P. S. North Rohini Mr. Archit Singh, Advocate for R-2
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
