Settlement agreements must be adhered to once executed voluntarily, and claims cannot be revisited post-compliance with the agreed terms, despite the absence of certain documentation.

JUDGMENT

Mukta Gupta, J.

CRL.M.C. 1203/2021

1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 326/2018 under Sections 420/406/34 IPC registered at P.S. Hauz Khas on the complaint of the respondent No. 2 on the ground that the parties had settled their disputes vide the MoU dated 8th September 2019. According to the petitioner, he has complied with the terms of settlement arrived at between the parties and statement of the respondent No. 2 through his father was also recorded before the learned Additional District Judge, South District, Saket Courts on 27th January 2020 in Suit No. 700/2018 filed by the respondent No. 2 titled `Anish Goel Vs. Amit Gupta' and based on the settlement, the petitioner withdrew a company petition filed by him on 21st October 2019, however, now the respondent No. 2 is not co-operating and coming forward to quash the FIR in question. The petitioner having complied with all his obligations as envisaged under the MoU dated 8th September 2019, the respondent No. 2 on one pretext or the other, cannot deny, no objection affidavit for the quashing of the above-noted FIR.

2. As per the case of the petitioner, the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 were known to each other for the last several years. However, disputes arose between them in respect of Plot No. 95, Dona Paula Village Taleigao, Goa and shareholding of M/s. Skyscraper Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Pursuant to the dispute, respondent No. 2 filed a Civil Suit No. 700/2018 titled as `Anish Goel Vs. Amit Gupta' before the learned Additional District Judge for recovery of money as also lodged the above-noted FIR at P.S. Hauz Khas in respect of Plot No. 95, Dona Paula Village, Teleigao, Goa. The petitioner filed a company petition being Company Petition No. 05/241-241/PB/2019 titled `Amit Gupta Vs. M/s. Skyscraper Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.' against the respondent No. 2 in respect of the shareholding before the Hon'ble NCLT. Petitioner also filed a criminal complaint against the respondent No. 2 at P.S. Defence Colony which was thereafter transferred to Economic Offences Wing and was pending preliminary enquiry. With the intervention of the parents of both the sides and common friends, a settlement was arrived between the parties vide MoU dated 8th September 2019, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure P-2 to the present petition.

3. The agreement/MoU dated 8th September 2019 (Annexure P-2) executed between the parties reads as under:

"1. That as the result of aforesaid negotiations First Party agrees to pay a total amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- (One Crore Twenty Five Lacs Only) to the Second Party. The part payment of Rs.50,00,000/- (Fifty Lacs Only) out of the aforesaid total amount has already been made as under:

(a) Rs.25,00,000/- (Twenty Five Lacs Only) by cheque/RTGS/UTR no.ALLA201809045010408632 dated 04.09.2019 drawn on Allahabad Bank, branch by Sh.Satish Chand Gupta on behalf of First party.

(b) Rs.25,00,000/- (Twenty Five Lacs only) by way of two transfers of Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/- respectively, both from Kotak Mahindra Bank A/C of First party to A/c of Second Party by cheque no.000851 & 000852, dated 06.09.2019 and 07.09.2019 respectively.

(c) Remaining amount of Rs.75,00,000/- (Seventy Five Lacs Only) vide three post dated cheques for amount Rs.25,00,000/- (Twenty Five Lacs Only) each bearing Nos.000780, 000778 and 000779 dated 07.10.2019, 07.01.2020 and 22.01.2020 respectively all Drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Malviya Nagar branch, New Delhi.

2. It is also agreed by and between the parties that Second Party shall withdraw the complaint made by it to police. The Second Party undertakes to do all such things and acts such as withdrawing complaining, appear in person, file affidavits, applications, give statement etc. Which are required in order to get the said FIR No.326/2018 U/s 420/406/34 IPC, P.S. Hauz Khas, New Delhi against the First Party quashed from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and in the alternative compounded from t