2005 Supreme(AP) 4

2005(1) Crimes 108 (SC)
Supreme Court of India
(From Delhi High Court)
N. Santosh Hegde & S.B. Sinha, JJ.
Mohd. Shamim and Ors. —Appellants
versus
Nahid Begum and Anr. —Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2005
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2051 of 2004)
Decided on 7-1-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Zafar Sadique, Azeez Nazar Sabri and Balraj Dewan, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Amitava Poddar, Mrs. Anil Katiyar and Vijay K. Mehta, Advocates.

Important point
Where in a criminal case u/s 406 and 498A parties settled their disputes and wife received a substantial amount from husband in that settlement, continuance of criminal case would be an abuse of process of law.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 406 and 498A—Appellant husband got married to respondent No.1 in April 1989 divorced her through ­legal notice dt. 3-5-2002—Respondent lodged report on 30-10-2002 for ­offences against appellant, her mother and three sisters and FIR was recorded —In anticipatory bail application filed by appellant, with Court intervention a compromise/settlement was arrived between parties placed in writing wherein appellant paid respondent Rs. 2,25,000/- by bank pay order and ­deposited Rs. 50,000/- in Court to be paid to respondent on her making statement and no objection for quashing FIR—Appellants petition for quashing FIR before High Court opposed by ­respondent on plea of ignorance of any settlement pleaded by appellant—High Court dismissed petition—Appeal—Compromise deed filed by parties pleaded that it was entered on intervention of Addl. Session Judge and that respondent had received Rs. 2,25,000/- without raising any objection—Plea that she was ignorant of compromise deed appeared to be after thought—Ex-facie settlement between parties appeared to be genuine—In view of complainant having entered into settlement, continuance of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of Court and proceedings were liable to be quashed.

       Held : Before us, there is no denial or dispute as regard the factum of entering into the aforementioned settlement dated 14.11.2002. In the said deed of compromise it has categorically been averred that the same had been ­entered into on the intervention of S.N. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. It has also been accepted that out of sum of Rs.2,75,000/-, a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- has been paid to the First Respondent herein and the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- would be paid at the time of complainant’s making statement and no objection for quashing the FIR, which was retained in the court as per the direction of the court. It has further been averred that no dispute remained between the parties regarding the payment of dower amount (Mehar), dowry articles, including the alleged jewellary gift etc. In view of the fact that the settlement was arrived at the intervention of a judicial officer of the rank of the Additional Sessions Judge, we are of the opinion, the contention of the First Respondent herein to the effect that she was not aware of the contents thereof and the said agreement as also the affidavit which were got signed by her by misrepresentation of facts must be rejected. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we have no doubt in our mind that the denial of execution of the said deed of settlement is an afterthought on the part of the Respondent No.1 herein. Ex facie the settlement between the parties appears to be genuine. If the contention of the First Respondent herein is to be accepted, she would not have accepted the sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- and in any event, she could have filed an appropriate application in that behalf before the Court of S.N. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. What was least expected of her was that she would return the said sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- to the Appellants herein. (Paras 10 to 12)

       In view of the conduct of the First Respondent in entering into the aforementioned settlement, the continuance of the criminal proceeding pending against the Appellants, in our opinion, in this case also, would be an abuse of the process of the court. The Appellant No.1, however, would be entitled to withdraw the sum of Rs. 50,000/- which has been deposited in the court. We, therefore, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India direct that the impugned judgment be set aside. The First Information Report lodged against the Appellants is quashed. (Para 15)

       Result : Appeal allowed.