$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision:17^th September, 2024 + CRL.M.C. 6700/2024, CRL.M.A. 25588/2024 (ex-

parte interim reliefs) CRL.M.A.25589/2024 (Exemption) & CRL.M.A.25590/2024 (permission to file lengthy list of dates and synopsis)

KUNWER SACHDEV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya, Mr.

Apoorv Agarawl, Ms.Prachi Darji, Mr. Bhanu Karan singh Jodha, Mr. Tushar Gadia, Ms. Muskaan Goel and Mr. Rajeev Chaoudhary, Advocates.

versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR......Respondents Through: SI Navneet Yadav, PS Connaught Place.

Ms. Arundhati Katju, Mr. Sanyam Khetarpal, Ms. Arya Suresh, Mr. Nitai Agarwal, Ms. Lisa Sankrit and Ms. Ritika Meena, Advocates for R2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T (oral)

CRL.M.C. 6700/2024

1. The Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 0126/2024 dated 31.05.2024 under Sections 420, 120B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C.6700/2024 Page 1 of 11 (“IPC” hereinafter) , registered at Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has appeared on advance Notice.

3. Briefly stated the petitioner, Mr. Kunwer Sachdev was married to respondent No. 2 Ms. Geeta Sachdev on 25.09.1987 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Arya Samaj Mandir, Mandir Marg, New Delhi. Two sons, Kanav and Shourya were born from their wedlock. However, due to ongoing disputes and quarrels, the parties have been living separately since September 2009 and have not been able to reconcile their differences.

4. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 jointly filed a Petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“HMA,1955” hereinafter) before the Family Court, New Delhi. They entered into a Settlement and it was agreed that the Petitioner would pay a settlement amount of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- and transfer complete rights, titles, and ownership of two immovable properties: one commercial property bearing No. WZ- 1402/1, Nangal Raya, Delhi-110046, and another residential property bearing No. F-

37, Greenwood City, Gurgaon, Haryana in favour of Respondent No. 2.

5. The parties accepted the Settlement Deed dated 13.08.2015 in their respective statements and first motion of divorce under Section 13B(1) of the HMA, 1955 was allowed by the Order dated 14.08.2015.

6. In furtherance of the Settlement Deed, parties signed two addendum Agreements both dated 11.03.2016. The first Addendum Agreement was e- stamped at 6:46 PM and the second was e- stamped on 11.03.2016 at 6:48 PM. There were thus, two Addendum Agreements signed on the same day e-

stamped at a gap of two minutes.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C.6700/2024 Page 2 of 11

7. The second Addendum Agreement was presented before the Family Court in the second Petition for Divorce under Section 13(B)(2) of HMA wherein parties made their detailed statements endorsing the second Addendum Agreement and also deposed about the details of the Settlement. The statements were accepted and it was mentioned in the Order dated 11.03.2016 that full and final settlement amount of Rs. 3 crores has been received by the respondent No. 2. The Divorce by Mutual Consent under Section 13(B)(2) of HMA, 1955 was accordingly given to the parties.

8. The petitioner has claimed that during the Divorce proceedings, he was unable to retrieve the cheques issued to respondent No. 2 in pursuance of the first Addendum. However, these cheques were wrongly deposited by her despite there being no underlying liability. In light of the final Second Addendum Agreement, she ought to have returned the cheques. But she has manipulated the facts to her advantage in order to coerce the petitioner and to extract more money.

9. The respondent No. 2 filed a Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the Petitioner for dishonour of above-mentioned cheques vide C