SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Del) 2897

DELHI HIGH COURT
Manmohan, J.
Manas Acharya - Appellant
Versus
State & Anr. - Resopndent
Crl.M.C. 2090/2012 & Crl.M.A. 7236/2012, 14412/2012
Decided On : 29-08-2012

Advocates:
Through:Ms. Jyoti Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate. Petitioner in person.
Through:Ms. Jasbir Kaur,APP for State. Mr. Santosh Kumar Suman, Advocate for respondent No.2 with respondent No.2 in person.

The settlement agreement between the parties was found to be comprehensive, valid, and binding, and the court relied on legal precedents to support its decision to quash the FIR and other proceedings.

Headnote:

Quashing of FIR - Marriage Dispute - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13B - Domestic Violence Act - Criminal Procedure Code, Section 482 - [498A IPC, 406 IPC, 34 IPC, 13B (1) HMA, 13B (2) HMA, 125 Cr.P.C., 12 DV Act, 482 Cr.P.C.] - The court discussed the settlement agreement between the parties, the return of jewellery/istridhan, and the validity and binding nature of the agreement. The court referred to legal provisions and interpretations from Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal & Ors. and Kirti Jain @ Shalu Jain & Anr. Vs. Sh. J.P. Jain to support its decision to quash the FIR and other proceedings.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 498A IPC and other consequential proceedings arising from a marriage dispute. The parties had resolved their disputes through an agreement before the Mediation Centre, which included dissolution of marriage, payment of a lump sum amount, and return of jewellery/istridhan. However, respondent No.2 opposed the quashing of the FIR, claiming that her jewellery/istridhan had not been returned.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the settlement agreement was comprehensive, valid, and binding, and that respondent No.2's opposition was contrary to facts and unfair. The court also referred to legal precedents to support its decision.

Issues: The issues involved the validity and binding nature of the settlement agreement, the return of jewellery/istridhan, and the opposition to quashing of the FIR.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles from Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal & Ors. and Kirti Jain @ Shalu Jain & Anr. Vs. Sh. J.P. Jain to establish the validity and binding nature of the settlement agreement and to support the decision to quash the FIR and other proceedings.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and any other proceedings arising therefrom. Respondent No.2 was directed to pay costs to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Manmohan, J.

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.127/2008 registered with Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi under Sections 498A IPC as well as any other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The relevant facts of the present case are that on 13th February, 2006, petitioner was married to respondent No.2. On 13th May, 2008, due to disputes and differences, respondent No.2 lodged the aforesaid FIR. Subsequently, respondent No.2 also filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act and a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

3. On 18th April, 2011, both parties resolved all their disputes and differences by way an agreement before the Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The relevant portion of the aforesaid agreement is reproduced herein below:-

“…..Now the parties have decided to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual consent on the following terms and conditions: i) That parties have agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent and further agreed to move appropriate petitions under section 13 B (1) and 13 B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act. ii) That in view of the settlement between the parties, the respondent/husband has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs only) as total lump sum amount to the petitioner/wife towards istridhan, maintenance (present, past and future) dowry articles and permanent alimony etc. iii) It is further agreed between the parties that the respondent/husband will pay the first installment of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of DD to the petitioner/wife at the time of recording of statement in a petition filed u/s. 13 B (1) of HMA. The petition for divorce with mutual consent will be filed mutually within seven days from today. iv) It is further agreed between the parties that the respondent/husband will pay the second installment of Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of DD to the petitioner/wife at the time of recording of statement in the second motion petition for divorce by mutual consent u/s. 13 B (2) HMA as per law. v) Thereafter the parties will move an application for quashing of the FIR bearing no. 127/2008 P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur, u/s. 498A/406/34 IPC before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and at the time of quashing the respondent/husband will pay the final installment of Rs. 50,000/- by way of DD to the petitioner/wife and the petitioner will cooperate in quashing of the FIR. vi) After recording of statement in the first motion petition for divorce by mutual consent the petitioner has agreed to withdraw the present application u/s. 12 of DV Act and maintenance execution no. 105/4/10. Both are pending before the court of Ms. Priya Mahindra, Ld. MM, Saket Courts, Delhi. vii) That after the total payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- all claims of complainant/wife will stand settled i.e. istridhan, maintenance (present, past and future). No claim left for permanent alimony, jewellery articles dowry articles etc.

viii) The parties have further agreed that they will not further litigate with each other or against their family members in respect of matrimonial dispute in any manner before any court of law as they undertake to abide by the terms of the present settlement and if any other case/complaint has been filed by both the parties against each other or their family members and relatives, it shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. The above said settlement has been arrived at between the parties out of their own free will and without any force, pressure and coercion…..” (emphasis supplied)

4. However, as respondent No.2 refused to cooperate with filing of the first motion petition, petitioner agreed to pay her an additional sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- over and above the agreed amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-.

5. In February, 2012, in pursuance to the aforesaid agreement, respondent No.2 withdrew her complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act as well as all execution proceedings filed by her.

6. On 03rd April, 2012


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top