Back
High Court Of Delhi
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
ANUPAM SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
NCT OF DELHI - Respondents
Crl. M. C. 2111 Of 2004
Decided On : 08/23/2007
SETTLEMENT - Matrimonial Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Section 23 Rule 3, Section 125 Cr. P. C., Section 420 IPC - The court discussed the requirement of a settlement to be recorded in writing, the consent of the parties to the compromise, and the court's role in encouraging settlements during bail applications. The court also considered the issue of deception in a matrimonial dispute and the consequences of resiling from a settlement agreement.
Fact of the Case:
The husband sought to quash an FIR under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC, claiming that his wife had settled all her claims for Rs. 5 lakhs and consented to the FIR being quashed. The wife denied giving any consent, stating that the settlement amount was inadequate considering her claims towards streedhan, maintenance, and alimony.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the settlement was recorded in writing in the order dated 25. 1. 2003 and that the wife had accepted part payment under the compromise. The court held that the facts on record did not justify an inquiry into the adequacy of the settlement amount. The court also dismissed the wife's claim of being misled into compromise and quashed the FIR.
Issues: The issues included the requirement of a settlement to be recorded in writing, the consent of the parties to the compromise, the court's role in encouraging settlements during bail applications, the revocation of anticipatory bail, and the cancellation of the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a settlement need not be restricted to a written agreement and may be proved by parole evidence. It also found that the wife was conscious of the compromise, accepted part payment, and relied upon the settlement in judicial proceedings. The court emphasized the importance of courts encouraging settlements in matrimonial disputes during bail applications.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the husband's plea to quash the FIR and directed him to pay a further sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to the wife. The court also quashed the FIR under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC, PS Vikas Puri, and imposed no costs.
( 1 ) VIDE Crl. M. C. No. 3920/2003 Anupam sharma, husband of Anu Gautam prays that FIR No. 323/2002 under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC, PS Vikas Puri be quashed.
( 2 ) VIDE Crl. M. C. No. 2111/2004 Anu gautam prays that the orders dated 25. 1. 2003 and 5. 2. 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge be quashed.
( 3 ) ORDER dated 25. 1. 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge reads as under-
"present: Shri L. C. Jain APP for the state with SI Shiv Darshan with case file and complainant Smt. Anu with her counsel sh. S. K. Sharma, Adv. Sh. K. K. Madan, adv. for the petitioner. Heard. Efforts for settlement were made. Complainant is ready and willing to receive Rs. 5,00,000/- in full and final settlement including alimony from the petitioner. Payment of Rs. 73,000/- has already been made. The said amount shall be deducted from agreed amount of Rs. 5,00,000/ -. Both the parties agree that they will move for quashing for FIR and mutual divorce. Rs. 2,27,000/- (Two Lac twenty Seven Thousand) will be paid at the time of conclusion of this bail application. At the request of the parties adjourned to 30. 1. 2003 as prayed. Till then interim order to continue. "
( 4 ) ORDER dated 5. 2. 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge reads as under:-
"present : APP for State with complainant and her counsel. Counsel for applicant/accused. Heard. Parties have arrived at compromise. They are filing petition for divorce and the matter has been settled for Rs. 5,00,000/ -. Out of which sum of Rs. 2,98,000/- has been paid by cheque of Rs. 2,05,000/-bearing cheque No. 502081-110023036 and cash of Rs. 20,000/-today. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, applicants are ordered to be released on bail, in the event of their arrest, on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned IO/sho subject to the condition that the applicant shall join investigation as and when called for by the IO. Sd/- ASJ at this stage, counsel for complainant showed the cheque to the court that there is a discrepancy in cheque in as much as a sum of Two lacs Five thousand has been mentioned in words and in figures only a sum of rs. Two lacs Five thousand (2,00005)has been mentioned. Let, notice be issued to the accused/applicants for 6. 2. 2003. Put up on 6. 2. 2003. Cheque is attached. "
Sd/- ASJ
( 5 ) WHEREAS husband prays that the twin effect of the orders dated 25. 1. 2003 and 5. 2. 2003 is that Anu Gautam settled all her claims for Rs. 5 lakhs and on receipt of the same consented to the FIR being quashed, since he has paid Rs. 3 lakhs and as per the settlement is ready to pay further Rs. 2 lakhs, the FIR be quashed.
( 6 ) CASE pleaded by Anu Gautam is that she never gave any such consent. That it is preposterous for any reasonable person to believe that she gave any such consent considering that her streedhan illegally retained by her in-laws was valued at more than Rs. 15 lacs coupled with the fact that her husband was earning nearly Rs. l lakh per month. Pithly stated, case of Anu gautam is that no sane person would receive rs. 5 lakhs as full and final settlement amount for the claim towards streedhan, maintenance and permanent alimony.
( 7 ) FULCRUM of submission made by Shri m. C. Bhandare, learned senior counsel for anu Gautam was that a settlement between the parties as per requirement of Order 23 rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 has to be evidenced in writing. It was urged that there being none, mandate of law not being complied with, it has to be treated that there is no settlement between the parties.
( 8 ) LEARNED senior counsel cited the following authorities in respect of said submission:-
(a) AIR 1993 Delhi 365 Krishan mohan Singh Vs. Sri Chand Gupta and Ors. (b) AIR 1993 Calcutta 58 Molla sirajul Haque Vs. Gora Chand mullickandors. (c) (1992) 1 SCC 31 Byram Pestonji garwala Vs. U
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
