498A quashed on compromise Deed

Delhi High Court

Sanjeev Nagpal And Ors.
vs
State And Anr. on 4/10/2007

JUDGMENT

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

Crl. M.A. No. 11780/06

1. This is an application for restoration of Crl. M.C. 914/03.
2. Cause shown is sufficient. Crl. M.A. 11780/06 is allowed.
3. Crl. M.C. 914/03 is restored.

Crl. M.C. No. 914/03

1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR No. 16/2003 registered at P.S.
Kirti Nagar under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and the proceedings arising out of the said FIR.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the marriage between petitioner
No. 1, Sanjeev Nagpal and respondent No. 2, Sonia Nagpal was solemnized on 19.8.96 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Unfortunately, the marriage turned sour and they started living separately since June,2001. A boy named Shrey was born to the parties.

3. A complaint dated 7.1.2003 was filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner No. 1, his father (petitioner No. 2), mother (petitioner No. 3), sister (petitioner No. 5) and brother-in-law (petitioner No.

4). The complaint contained the allegations of harassment for dowry,
illegal retention of istridhan etc.

4. On the basis of the complaint FIR No. 16/03 dated 9.1.2003 was
registered.

5. Subsequently, parties entered into a written agreement dated 20.1.03 whereby they settled the disputes between them on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Inter alia, it was agreed that a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs was to be paid by the petitioners to the respondent No. 2 and that in consideration of same petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 would obtain a decree of divorce by mutual consent and shall also seek quashing of aforesaid FIR.

6. Copy of the agreement dated 20.1.2003 is on record. Correctness of the same is not disputed. It reads as under:

AGREEMENT/COMPROMISE

This Deed of Agreement is made on 20th day of January 2003, between Mrs. Sonia Nagpal W/o Sh. Sanjeev Nagpal at present residing at 7/126, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi on the first part.

AND

Sh. Om Prakash Nagpal S/o Late Jeevan Das R/o 17 B/D, Gandhi Nagar,

Jammu, India. (The real brother of the father-in-law of the first

party) acting on behalf of Sh. Ram Saroop Das S/o Late Jeevan Das.

That a marriage took place between the first party and Sh. Sanjeev

Nagpal S/0 Sh. Ram Saroop, on 19.8.96 and a boy named Master Shrey,

was born out of the said wedlock. But due to the differences in

temperament of both the husband and wife, the marriage could not

stood long and ultimately, a FIR No. 16/2003, P.S. Kirti Nagar,

under Section 498A/406/34 IPC against the husband and his family.

That due to the intervention of the respectables from both the

family, the dispute has been settled, and by this agreement the

complainant (first party) has agreed to settle the dispute by taking

8,00,000/- rupees (Rupees Eight Lacs only) from Sh. Om Parkash on

behalf of the accused party, as a total amount in lump-sum, more

specifically, this amount consisting of the entire istridhan,

Alumony, her future maintenance etc.

That out of the above said amount rupees four lacs (4,00,000/-)

would be paid to her at the time of granting the bail to the accused

party and rest of the amount of four lacs (4,00,000/-) would be paid

to the first party at the time of divorce by mutual consent, and

quashing the FIR No. 16/2003, P.S. Kirti Nagar, under Section

498A/406/34 IPC by the first party (Ms. Sonia Nagpal) That the baby

boy master Shrey would be with his father, Sh. Sanjeev Nagpal on his

sole responsibility, however the mother Smt. Sonial Nagpal would be

allowed to meet the child as and when she desires. Both the party

have at set their hands before the following witnesses:

WITNESSES: FIRST PARTY

Sd/- SECOND PARTY

7. In pursuance of afore-noted agreement, a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs was paid

to respondent No. 2-wife at the time when the learned Additional

Sessions Judge granted the bail to the petitioners.

8. As evident from the agreement, balance amount of Rs. 4 lakhs was to

be paid in two installments of Rs. 2 lakhs each. First installment of

Rs. 2 lakhs was to be paid at the time when the decree of divorce by

mutual consent was obtained by the parties. Second installment of Rs. 2

lakhs was to be paid at the time when FIR would have got quashed.

9. However, parties could not agree about the format of joint petition

which was to be filed under Section 13(B)(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955 for a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Petitioner No. 1

alleges that he prepared draft joint petition but that the respondent

No. 2 did not co-operate with him and unilaterally filed a petition for

divorce.

10. Petitioner No. 1 submitted that since he also wanted a divorce

notwithstanding various allegations against him contained in the

divorce petition filed unilaterally by the wife and since object of

separation was being achieved he did not appear in said proceedings.

The court thus granted an ex- parte decree to the respondent No. 2.

11. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are ready and willing

to perform their obligations under the afore-noted written agreement

but respondent No. 2-wife is resiling from the said agreement and is

not co-operating with them.

12. The question is whether in these circumstances, the FIR as also the

proceedings arising out of the said FIR should be quashed or not.

13. In the decision reported as Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agarwal and

Ors. a complaint was lodged by the appellant-wife

alleging offences under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC and Sections 3

and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereafter, a divorce petition was

filed by her. In the said divorce petition, a compromise was arrived

between the parties in which it was stated that the first

respondent-husband was willing for a consent divorce and that the

appellant-wife had received all her maintenance and istridhan in lump

sum. It was also stated in the said compromise deed that the parties to

the proceedings would withdraw all civil and criminal complaints filed

against each other. Notwithstanding the compromise, the appellant-wife

did not take any steps to withdraw the said complaint. Noting that the

appellant-wife had signed the compromise deed and the first

respondent-husband performed his part of obligation under the

compromise deed, the Supreme Court quashed the complaint and observed

as under:

Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, however contended, that

though the appellant had signed the compromise deed with the

above-mentioned terms in it, the same was obtained by the

respondent-husband and his family under threat and coercion and in

fact she did not receive lump sum maintenance and her Stridhan

properties, we find it extremely difficult to accept this argument

in the background of the fact that pursuant to the compromise deed

the respondent- husband has given her a consent divorce which she

wanted and thus had performed his part of obligation under the

compromise deed. Even the appellant partially performed her part of

obligations by withdrawing her criminal complaint filed under

Section 125. It is true that she made a complaint to the Family

Court where Section 125 Cr. P.C. proceedings were pending that the

compromise deed was filed under coercion but she withdrew the same

and gave a statement before the said court affirming the terms of

the compromise which statement was recorded by the Family Court and

the proceedings were dropped and a divorce was obtained. Therefore,

we are of the opinion that appellant having received the relief she

wanted without contest on the basis of the terms of the compromise,

we cannot now accept the argument of the learned Counsel for the

appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates

that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed

by the wife only to harass the respondents. In view of the said

subsequent events and the conduct of the appellant, it would be an

abuse of process of the court if the criminal proceedings from which

this appeal arises is allowed to continue. Therefore, we are of the

considered opinion that to do complete justice, we should while

dismissing this appeal also quash proceedings arising from the

Criminal Case No. 224/2003 registered in police station, Bilaspur,

(Distt. Rampur) filed under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 IPC and

READ  Acquitted after 14 years in 498A and 304B IPC

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the

respondents herein. It is ordered accordingly. Appeal is disposed

of.

14. In the decision reported as Mohd. Shamim v. Nahid Begum 2005 (1)

JCC 83, first respondent-wife filed a complaint under Sections

498A/406/34 IPC against the appellants. During the pendency of the

complaint, a settlement was arrived at by the parties. An affidavit in

support of the said settlement was filed by the first respondent-wife.

The said settlement was duly recorded in a judicial order. Pursuant to

the said settlement, appellants filed a petition under Section 482 of

the Cr. P.C., 1973 before the High Court for quashing the FIR. First

respondent-wife filed an objection to the said petition. In view of

stand taken by the first respondent, the High Court declined to quash

the FIR. Noting that the first respondent had entered into a settlement

and had also received money in pursuance of said settlement, the

Supreme Court in appeal reversed the decision of the High Court and

quashed the FIR. In the said decision, the Supreme Court had observed

as under:

In view of the conduct of the First Respondent in entering into the

aforementioned settlement, the continuance of the criminal

proceeding pending against the Appellants, in our opinion, in this

case also, would be an abuse of process of the court. The Respondent

No. 1, however, would be entitled to withdraw the sum of Rs.

50,000/- deposited in the court. We therefore, in exercise of our

jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India direct

that the impugned judgment be set aside. The First Information

Report lodged against the appellants is quashed. The Appeal is

allowed. However, this order should not be treated as a precedent.

15. In the decision reported as Kamlesh Varma and Ors. v. NCT of Delhi

and Ors. 2002 (2) CCC (Del) 74 on the basis of the complaint lodged by

the respondent No. 2-wife, a FIR under Sections 498A/406 IPC was

registered against the petitioners. Husband of the complainant also

filed a petition for divorce which was decreed in his favor. Against

the said decree, Respondent No. 2-wife filed an appeal in the Punjab

and Haryana High Court. During the pendency of the said appeal, an

compromise was arrived at between the parties and in terms of

compromise husband paid a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- to the respondent No.

2-wife. The respondent No. 2-wife categorically undertook to withdraw

the aforementioned complaint filed by her. In pursuance of the

compromise, a quashing petition was filed before the High Court. The

respondent No. 2-wife however refused to co- operate with the

petitioners in the said quashing on the ground that the sum of Rs.

2,25,000/- was paid only towards her claim for maintenance. Noting the

compromise which was arrived at before the Punjab and Haryana High

Court, the learned Single Judge of this Court quashed the

afore-mentioned FIR. In the said decision, it was observed as under:

4. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 2/complainant was

working in the railway at the relevant time. In view of the same, I

am unable to accept the argument that the complainant accepted Rs.

2,25,000/- only towards her maintenance. Articles of Istridhan were

recovered by the police during investigation on 20th January, 1993

and 13th February, 1993. The respondent is resting her claim for the

un-recovered jewellery on the list given on 11th February, 1993

during the investigations to the police. This claim was very much

within her knowledge on the date she accepted Rs. 2,25,000/- before

Division Bench in High Court on 25th March, 1996 when she

specifically undertook to withdraw/settle criminal case pending in

the Matrimonial Court, Shahdra. If that was so, respondent No. 2

ought to have not agreed or ought to have sought clarification from

the High Court. That having not been done, now it does not lie in

her mouth and argued that she never agreed to get the criminal

proceeding quashed. This contention is without merit and the same is

rejected. 5. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, the

continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the

process of the court and the same are liable to be quashed in terms

of same law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v.

Bhajan Lal and several subsequent judgments.

16. In the decision reported as Satish Gathwal and Ors. v. State and

Anr. 1982 (2) JCC 114 on the basis of the complaint lodged by the

respondent No. 2- wife, a FIR under Sections 498A/406 IPC was

registered against the petitioners. During pendency of the criminal

proceedings pertaining to the afore-mentioned FIR, a written agreement

was entered into between the parties whereby they agreed to settle the

disputes between them on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. In

pursuance of said agreement, a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was received by the

respondent No. 2-wife. A joint petition for quashing of FIR was filed

before the High Court. During the hearing of the quashing petition,

respondent No. 2-wife made a statement before the court affirming the

terms of the agreement. However, later she refused to participate in

the quashing petition on the ground that the amount mentioned in the

agreement was paid towards her claim for maintenance, stridhan and

dowry articles and that agreement had nothing to do with criminal

proceedings pending trial. Noting the written agreement entered into

between the parties and statement of respondent No. 2-wife before the

Court wherein she affirmed the terms of agreement, the learned Single

Judge of this Court quashed the FIR in question. In the said decision,

it was observed as under:

17. Her statement was a representation made and undertaking given

before this Court that she will not pursue her complaint and on the

basis of this, the petitioner has given and she has accepted Rs.

6.00 lakhs in part satisfaction of the agreement. This is very

unfortunate that she is now backing out from this undertaking. She

is estopped in law from withdrawing her undertaking and

representation. This would amount to committing Contempt of Court by

her. From the agreement entered into between the parties and which

is confirmed by them in Court, no doubt is left that this was a

package deal for divorce as well as for quashing the criminal

proceedings. By denying this agreement, she is certainly misusing

the process of the Court. The Court would not allow a party to

misuse its process.

17. Lastly, I note the following observations of the Supreme Court in

the decision reported as State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and Ors.

:

In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled

to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing

the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the

Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought

to be quashed. The saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both

in civil and criminal matters is designed to achieve a salutary

public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be

permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.

In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the

very nature of the material on which the structure of the

prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in

quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of

justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got

to be administered according to laws made by the legislature….

18. In the light of the afore-noted judicial pronouncements and noting

the fact that the respondent No. 2 had entered into a written agreement

dated 20.1.2003 and that she took Rs. 4 lakhs in pursuance of said

agreement, I consider it appropriate to quash the aforesaid FIR and

proceedings arising out of the said FIR.

19. Petitioners are hereby directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 4 lacs in

the Registry of this Court within a week from today.

20. On compliance of the aforesaid direction by the petitioners, the

FIR No. 16/2003 registered at P.S. Kirti Nagar under Sections

498A/406/34 IPC would be deemed to be quashed.

21. Liberty is granted to the respondent No. 2-wife to withdraw the

said sum of Rs. 4 lacs.

READ  Making false allegations amounts to cruelty, section 13(1) (i-a)

22. Crl.M.C. No. 914/03 is accordingly allowed.

23. No costs.

Rajesh And Ors. vs State And Anr. on 17 January, 2008

Delhi High Court

Rajesh And Ors. vs State And Anr. on 17/1/2008

JUDGMENT

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.

1. By the instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of

India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners sought quashing of

the FIR No. 30 of 2007 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC read with Section

3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered with Police Station Bhajanpura,

Delhi and quashing of another FIR bearing No. 659 of 2006 under

Sections 323/506/34 IPC registered with Police Station Anand Vihar,

Delhi.

2. The above two FIRs were a result of matrimonial discord. After

registration of these FIRs, a compromise was arrived at between parties

before the Court of Ms. Reena Singh Nag, ASJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi

and this compromise was signed by both parties. It reads as under:

COMPROMISE DEED

THIS COMPROMISE DEED is executed on 19th day of January, 2007 at

Delhi between:

Sh. Rajesh s/o Sh. Mukut Lal r/o V.P.O. Jawli, P.S. Loni, Distt.

Ghaziabad, U.P. (hereinafter referred to as FIRST PARTY/HUSBAND).

AND

Smt. Neelam w/o Sh. Rajesh D/o Sh. Yudhvir Singh r/o A-42, Village

North

Ghonda, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as SECOND PARTY/WIFE).

That both the parties had got married on 02.03.2006 at Delhi

according to Hindu Rites and Customs.

IN WITNESSES WHEREOF both the parties have entered into the

compromise on the following terms and conditions:

1. That with the intervention of the relatives and friends both the

parties have amicably resolved their matrimonial differences and it

has been amicably settled that both the parties shall get their

marriage dissolved from a competent court of law as it is not

possible for both the parties to reunite and live together.

2. That the First Party will pay a sum of Rs. 13,50,000/- (Rupees

Thirteen Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) to the Second party against her

entire claims as full and final settlement and the said sum of Rs.

13,50,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) includes

past, present and future maintenance, divorce by mutual consent,

permanent alimony, dowry/Istridhan articles including jewellery,

quashing of FIR No. 30/2007 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC r/w

Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act of P.S. Bhajanpura, Delhi,

quashing of FIR No. 659/2006 under Section 323/506/34 IPC of P.S.

Anand Vihar, Delhi, withdrawal of complaint case titled as Neelam v.

Rajesh and Ors. pending adjudication in the Court of Shri S.K.

Malhotra, MM, Karkardooma, Delhi fixed for 26.2.2007 and both the

parties further agrees to withdraw every complaint/cases filed by

them against each other in any court of law and hereinafter there

shall be no civil or criminal litigation between the parties

relating to the marriage.

3. That it has been mutually agreed that a sum of Rs. 13,50,000/-

(Rupees Thirteen Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) shall be disbursed to the

Second Party as under:

(a) Rs. 5,00,000 (Rupees Five Lacs Only) before the Ld. Sessions

Judge, Karkardooma at the time of grant of bail to the First Party

and his family members in case FIR No. 30/2007 of P.S. Bhajanpura,

Delhi under Section 498A/406/34 IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act.

(b) Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs Only) before the Hon’ble Court

at the time of recording of the Joint statement of Second Motion of

Divorce by mutual consent and the said joint petitions of divorce by

mutual consent shall be filed by both the parties in the month of

March, 2007 or earliest possible.

(c) Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs Fifty Thousand only) before the

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at the time of quashing of FIR No.

30/2007, P.S. Bhajanpura, Delhi under Section 498A/406/34 IPC r/w

Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and FIR No. 659 of 2006 of P.S.

Anand Vihar, Delhi under Section 323/506/34 IPC which have been

registered on the complaint of the brother of the Second party.

4. That it is mutually settled between the parties that the entire

dowry/Istridhan articles shall be retained by the First party and

the said sum of Rs. 13,50,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lacs Fifty Thousand

Only) includes the value of the said articles also which is being

paid by the First party to the Second party.

5. That it is further agreed that the Second party shall cooperate,

sign and hand over the relevant documents for transfer of the Indigo

TDI SX Car bearing Registration No. DL-4C-U-7037 in favor of the

First party at the time of final payment but before one month the

signatures of the owner of the aforesaid vehicle shall be got

verified from the Transport Authority for the purpose of

verification of signature. However, relevant sale documents will be

given finally at the time of final payment and in case any other

relevant document is required by the Transport Authority the Second

party undertakes to cooperate and to do the needful at the time of

final payment.

6. That it is further agreed between the parties that the said

compromise arrived between the parties is binding and enforceable.

7. That in case of non-fulfillment of the above mentioned compromise

the Second party shall be at liberty to initiate legal proceedings

against First party and his family members and the present

compromise deed shall stand null and void and in case the Second

party do not cooperate and perform the above mentioned acts, the

First Party shall be entitled for refund of the amount received by

the Second party as mentioned above.

8. That the present compromise have been arrived and signed by both

the parties without any threat, force, fraud, coercion, pressure or

undue influence from any side and at their free will without any

collusion.

IN WITNESSES WHEREOF both the parties have signed on this Compromise

Deed on the day, month and year mentioned above.

Witnesses:

SD/-

1. (FIRST PARTY/HUSBAND)

SD/-

2. (SECOND PARTY/WIFE)?

3. It is submitted by the petitioners that in terms of the compromise a

sum of Rs. 5 lac was paid to the respondent No. 2 at the time of grant

of bail and another sum of Rs. 4 lac was paid to respondent No. 2

before the Court of Shri Deepak Jagotra, Additional District Judge at

the time of making joint statement for grant of divorce by mutual

consent in petition No. 127 of 2007 and remaining amount of Rs. 4.5 lac

was to be paid by the petitioner to respondent No. 2 before this Court

at the time of quashing of the aforesaid two FIRs. The respondent No. 2

in terms of the compromise was to sign the transfer documents of car

bearing registration number DL4CU7037 in favor of petitioner No. 2

before this Court. Respondent No. 2, give her specimen signatures on

the documents/letters regarding transfer of vehicle before the Court of

Shri Deepak Jagrotia, for verification but deliberately put her

signatures in Hindi while her signatures before Transport Authorities

were in English. When the petitioner No. 1 went for verification of

signatures, he found that the signatures were not tallying because

respondent No. 2 signed the documents in Hindi while her signatures

were actually in English. Respondent No. 2 was also to withdraw her

complaint filed against petitioner No. 1 titled as Neelam v. Rajesh

pending adjudication before the Court of Shri S.K. Malhotra,

Metropolitan Magistrate. The respondent No. 2 neither withdrew her

complaint nor put her correct signature on sale/transfer documents qua

vehicle. When she was approached by the petitioner to sign the quashing

petition and receive balance amount before this Court and cooperate in

quashing of the above noted two FIRs, she refused to do so. The

petitioners, therefore, approached this Court for quashing of the

above-mentioned FIRs.

4. Notice of the instant petition was served upon the respondent No. 2.

It is contended by respondent No. 2 in the written submissions filed

before this Court that she has no objection insofar as quashing of FIR

bearing No. 30 of 2007, Police Station Bhajanpura is concerned,

however, on account of the acts of the petitioners, she considered that

the petitioners were not entitled for any relief. She alleged that in

fact the petitioners failed to honour the compromise and the spirit

behind the compromise. The FIRs were to be quashed subject to the

READ  Section 482 Cr.P.C vs. 320 Cr.P.C in 498A

condition that petitioners will pay a sum of Rs. 13,50,000/- , out of

which, Rs. 9 lac has been received by respondent No. 2, the remaining

amount of Rs. 4.5 lac has not been paid by the petitioners to

respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 served a legal notice dated 13th

April, 2007, reminding the petitioners about failure on their part to

pay the balance amount. However, the petitioners failed to respond to

this notice, instead the petitioners approached the Court of Shri S.C.

Malik, Additional Sessions Judge for appropriate directions to

respondent No. 2 to give her signatures on the transfer form. The

respondent No. 2 told the Court of Shri S.C. Malik that she had already

given her signatures on the transfer form.

5. It is not disputed by respondent No. 2 that she signed the transfer

documents in Hindi and her signatures before the Transport Authorities

for the registration of vehicle were in English. However, she took the

stand that had the petitioners any grievance in this regard, they would

have responded to the legal notice of by respondent No. 2 to the

petitioners and would have paid the remaining amount of Rs. 4.5 lac in

terms of the compromise to respondent No. 2. It is stated that the

petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 are the police officials and they were

misusing their position and they know all tricks of the game. She

reiterated that it were the petitioners who were not cooperating for

quashing of the above FIRs.

6. In this Court, an offer was made to respondent No. 2 that she should

receive the balance amount of Rs. 4.5 lac in the Court, she should

cooperate in quashing of above FIRs, on which respondent No. 2

contended that since the amount had not been paid for long time and the

vehicle has also been used by the petitioners, she was entitled to an

additional amount by way of interest over this amount. She also took

the stand that there was no compromise regarding quashing of other FIR

and she shall not cooperate in quashing of FIR No. 659 of 2006.

7. Undisputedly a statement of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2

was recorded before the Court of ADJ on 3.2.2007 at the time of

granting divorce by mutual consent. The statement made by the

petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 reads as under:

We have already settled all our claims and disputes against each

other, qua this marriage, with regard to maintenance, past, present

and future, permanent alimony, dowry, stridhan, in full and final.

We have settled the matter for an amount of Rs. 13,50,000/- (Rs.

Thirteen lacs and fifty thousand only) towards full and final

settlement, out of which an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five

Lacs Only) has already been received by petitioner No. 2 and out of

the remaining amount an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rs. Four Lacs

Only) is handed over to petitioner No. 2 today, by way of Demand

Draft, bearing No. 242055, dated 03.02.2007, drawn on Indina

Overseas Bank, and the balance amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rupees Four

Lacs and Fifty Thousand Only) shall be handed over to petitioner No.

2 at the time of quashing of FIR No. 30/07, Under Section

498A/406/34 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, PS Bhajanpura and FIR

No. 659/06, Under Section 323, 506, 34 IPC PS Anand Vihar, before

Hon’ble High Court.

It has been further agreed between us that petitioner No. 2 shall

cooperate in the proceedings of getting the above mentioned two FIRs

quashed. It has been further agreed between us that petitioner No. 2

shall withdraw her complaint case, pending in the Court of Shri S.K.

Malhotra, Ld. MM, Delhi. It has been further agreed between us that

petitioner No. 2 shall execute all the necessary documents for the

transfer of vehicle No. DL 4CU 7037. Petitioner No. 2 has handed

over all the documents relating to the transfer of the above said

vehicle to petitioner No. 1, however, it is made clear that

petitioner No. 2 has executed all the documents for the purposes of

verification, her signatures, etc. in the concerned authority.

It has been further agreed between us that the above said vehicle

shall be completely transferred in the name of petitioner No. 1 only

after the full and final payment of Rs. 13,50,000/- (Rs. Thirteen

Lacs and Fifty Thousand only) shall be made by the petitioner No. 1

and till the complete transfer, all right, title or interest shall

remain with petitioner No. 2.

It has been further agreed between us that as the vehicle is in the

possession of petitioner No. 1, since 02.03.2006, he shall remain

bound by all the consequences, relating to the vehicle, including

insurance, court cases. Etc.

We have also agreed that we shall not file any sort of litigation in

future relating to this marriage.

8. A perusal of above statement coupled with the compromise mentioned

above would show that it was categorically agreed between petitioners

No. 1 and respondent No. 2 that on receipt of total amount of Rs. 13.5

lac, the above two FIRs, lodged at the behest of respondent No. 2 and

her relatives shall be got quashed and the respondent No. 2 shall

cooperate in quashing of these two FIRs. The amount of Rs. 4.5 lac was

to be handed over to the respondent No. 2 at the time of quashing of

the above two FIRs. It was also agreed between parties that respondent

No. 2 shall execute all requisite documents for transfer of the vehicle

(car) and she will withdraw her complaint pending adjudication in the

Court of Shri S.K. Malhotra, Metropolitan Magistrate and that she will

not initiate any sort of litigations in future qua this marriage and

that the vehicle shall remain in possession of petitioner No. 1 and he

would be responsible for all consequences pertaining to the vehicle

like insurance, court proceedings etc. The petitioner No. 1 has denied

having received any notice from respondent No. 2 and stated that this

writ petition for quashing was filed by the petitioner in July, 2007

after the statement of parties before the Court of learned ASJ was

recorded in February, 2007.? The petitioner was to arrange the balance

amount of Rs. 4.5 lac and after arranging the same, had approached

respondent No. 2 for cooperating in quashing the above referred two

FIRs but respondent No. 2 declined to cooperate. It is submitted that

respondent No. 3 who is father of R-2 and an advocate had all along

been instrumental for all the troubles and that is the reason why

respondent No. 2 did not cooperate.

9. Respondent No. 2 made a statement before the court on 3.2.2007,

after entering into compromise, with the petitioners, that she would

honour the compromise. She has to adhere to the statement made by her

before the Court. She had already received a substantial amount of Rs.

9 lac, out of the total amount of Rs. 13.5 lac, as agreed between the

parties. ?She had only to receive the balance amount of Rs. 4.5 lac. On

receipt of the same, she had to agree for quashing of the above two

FIRs and for withdrawal of the complaint filed by her before the Court

of Shri S.K. Malhotra, MM, Delhi. The balance amount of Rs. 4.5 lac was

to be paid to her by the petitioners in the Court at the time of

quashing of FIRs. Respondent No. 2 cannot be allowed to make mockery of

the Court proceedings, nor the statement made by her in the Court can

be considered a trash. Respondent No. 2 now cannot be allowed to back

out from the compromise or to wriggle out of the statement made before

the court. If it is allowed, there shall be no sanctity to the Court

proceedings and the statements made by the witness and the parties

before the Court.

10. In view of above discussion, I allow this writ petition. The above

two FIRs and the criminal complaint pending before the Court of Shri

S.K. Malhotra, MM, Delhi are hereby quashed. The petitioners are

directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 4.5 lac by way of a pay order/Bank Draft in this Court within three days in the name of

respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 will be at liberty to withdraw this amount from this Court immediately thereafter.

11. With above directions, this writ petition stands allowed.

One thought on “498A quashed on compromise Deed

  1. i want quesh oredr judgement from hydrabad high court. because i file our petition no CRLP 3104/2009 fOR QUESH UNDER 482 Cr p 1973. and i file before one year and you tell me how much time take by court for quesh oredr

    thanx
    bhim sen
    09327758597

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *