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

2013 Supreme(Del) 2489

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
Sachin Malik and Others - Appellant
Versus
State and Another - Respondent
Criminal M.C. No. 3688 of 2010
Decided On : 31-01-2013

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Avinash Sharma and Mr. Rohit Gandhi
For the Respondent: Naveen Sharma, A.P.P.

The court can quash FIR and criminal proceedings based on a settlement agreement between the parties, especially when the objections raised by the respondent are found to be extraneous.

Headnote:

Quashing of FIR - Settlement Agreement - The court quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings under Sections 498A/406/307/506, IPC based on the settlement agreement between the parties, where the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 5,25,000/- to the complainant and agreed to return all certificates/documents of the complainant. The respondent opposed the quashing on the grounds of non-compliance with the settlement terms, but the court found her objections to be extraneous and inclined to quash the FIR.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings based on a settlement agreement between the parties, where the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 5,25,000/- to the complainant and agreed to return all certificates/documents of the complainant.

Finding of the Court:

The court quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings under Sections 498A/406/307/506, IPC, based on the settlement agreement between the parties. The court found the respondent's objections to be extraneous and inclined to quash the FIR.

Issues: Quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings, compliance with settlement terms

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the respondent's objections to the quashing of the FIR were extraneous and inclined to quash the FIR based on the settlement agreement between the parties.

Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings under Sections 498A/406/307/506, IPC, and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant.

ORDER :

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

1. By this petition filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR No. 363/2008 registered against them under Sections 498A/406/307/506, IPC at P.S. H. Nizamuddin and criminal proceedings arising therefrom. Counsel for the petitioners state that the matter in dispute has been amicably settled between the parties with the intervention of Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee vide their order dated 7.8.2009. Counsel further submits that in terms of the said settlement arrived at between the parties, the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs. 5,25,000/- to the complainant in full and final settlement of all her material claims inclusive of Stridhan, maintenance (past, present and future), permanent alimony etc. Counsel also submits that the marriage of the parties has already been dissolved by mutual divorce vide judgment and decree dated 2.8.2010 passed by Ms. Raj Rani Mittra, ADJ, Patiala House Court. Counsel also submits that pursuant to the said settlement, the complainant has not pursued the petition filed by her u/s 125, Cr.P.C. and which already stands dismissed in default. Counsel also submits that no dispute of any nature any more survives between the parties. Counsel also submits that in terms of Clause 10 of the said compromise the petitioner/husband had agreed to return all the certificates/documents of the complainant/wife within a period of 15 days from the date of execution of the said settlement agreement, if any of such documents were found by him in his possession. Counsel further submits that after having made a thorough search the petitioner could not lay his hand on any of the certificates/documents of the complainant but the petitioner in his affidavit dated 28.1.2013 stated that he is prepared to bear all the expenses which may be incurred by the complainant in order to get duplicate certificates/documents. Counsel also submits that respondent No. 2 had appeared before this Court on 18.2.2011 when she took a stand that she has not been supplied her documents and certificates comprising four educational certificate, one LIC policy and documents relating to property/shop in her name, by the petitioner. Counsel further submits that thereafter respondent No. 2 appeared before this Court on 5.10.2012 when she strongly opposed the quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner on the ground that petitioner has failed to honour the terms of settlement in true letter and spirit. Counsel further submits that to show bonafides of the petitioner/husband, the petitioner is prepared to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the respondent No. 2/complainant for the expenses to be incurred by her for obtaining duplicate of her educational and other certificates.

2. I have heard Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

3. Vide order dated 5.10.2012 this Court directed respondent No. 2 to file an affidavit in opposition to the present petition in the form of an affidavit. In the affidavit filed by respondent No. 2, she has given details of educational certificates which as per her are lying in the custody and possession of the petitioner/husband. Respondent No. 2 has further given details of some property papers and LIC papers. Respondent No. 2 has further made an addition of valuable ornaments which she states are still lying with the petitioner/husband were never returned to her. After perusing the said affidavit of respondent No. 2 it is quite evident that respondent No. 2 has travelled much beyond the terms of settlement to claim jewellery articles and some other papers. It thus appears that respondent No. 2 is opposing the present petition for extraneous reasons. She is also not present today before the Court. Earlier also it has been noticed that she avoided to appear in the matter and the Court had to direct bailable warrants against her to secure her presence. As per Clause 10 of the Settlement Agreement petitioner/husband had agreed to return all certific


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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top