Delhi High Court
Sanjeev Nagpal And Ors.
State And Anr. on 4/10/2007
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
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:
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.
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
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
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
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the
respondents herein. It is ordered accordingly. Appeal is disposed
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
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.
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
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,
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:
THIS COMPROMISE DEED is executed on 19th day of January, 2007 at
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).
Smt. Neelam w/o Sh. Rajesh D/o Sh. Yudhvir Singh r/o A-42, Village
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
(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
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
IN WITNESSES WHEREOF both the parties have signed on this Compromise
Deed on the day, month and year mentioned above.
1. (FIRST PARTY/HUSBAND)
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
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
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.