SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sanjay Kumar And Ors vs State And Anr on 14 July, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 692/2021
SANJAY KUMAR AND ORS ….. Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Advocate.

versus

STATE AND ANR ….. Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Amit Gupta, APP for the State.
Mr. Narender Sharma, Advocate for
R-2.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER

% 14.07.2021
The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.

1. By this petition the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.121/2007
under
Sections 498A/406 IPC, registered at PS Bawana on the ground that
the parties have settled the matter.

2. The FIR in question was filed on the complaint of the respondent
No.2 against her husband, mother-in-law and two sister-in-laws. The
petitioner thereafter filed divorce petition against the respondent No.2,
which divorce petition was allowed by the learned Family Court vide
judgment dated 20th April, 2019 whereby the marriage between the
petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 was dissolved. Challenging the
judgment dated 20th April, 2019, the respondent No.2 filed the matrimonial
appeal (MAT APP.(F.C.) 175/2019) before this Court wherein during the
pendency of the appeal, settlement was arrived at between the parties. In
terms of the settlement, the Division Bench of this Court noted and passed
the following orders, that is, order dated 8th January, 2020 and 13th January,
2020 which read as under:-

Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 692/2021 PageDigitally
1 of Signed
MUKTA 5GUPTABy:JUSTICE
Signing Date:14.07.2021
20:40:37
“O R D E R
06.01.2020

1. Pursuant to the order dated 09.12.2019, both the parties
are present.

2. After interacting with the parties, learned counsel for the
parties had sought pass-over to enable them to negotiate a
settlement with each other. On the matter being taken up on pass-
over and after further negotiations, both parties have agreed in
principle that upon the respondent paying a sum of Rs.12 lakhs to
the appellant in two instalments of Rs.6 lakhs each, spread over six
months, in full and final settlement of all the claims of the
appellant against the respondent in all the pending litigations, the
appellant shall not press the present appeal and shall also
withdraw the pending cases filed against the respondent. Further,
the appellant has agreed that she shall cooperate with the
respondent in quashing of the FIR registered on her complaint
against him and his family members.

3. Learned counsel for the parties state that they may be
granted sometime to draft a joint application and place on record
all the terms and conditions of the settlement. To show his
bonafides, the respondent has agreed to deposit a sum of Rs.2
lakhs in the Registry, which amount shall be withdrawn by the
appellant after all the pending cases are withdrawn by her and the
FIR quashed

4. At joint request, list on 13.01.2020.”

“O R D E R
13.01.2020
C.M. Appl. No. 1135/2020 (Order 23 Rule 1 CPC filed jointly by
parties)

1. The present application has been jointly filed by the
appellant and the respondent stating inter alia, that pursuant to the
order dated 06.01.2020, they have arrived at an amicable
settlement.

2. The terms of settlement have been recorded in the
Settlement Agreement dated 10.01.2020, enclosed with the present
application and marked as Annexure A, wherein it has been
recorded that both the parties have agreed that on the respondent
paying a sum of Rs.12 lakhs to the appellant in full and final
settlement of all her claims including maintenance, permanent
alimony, return of dowry articles and stridhan, etc., in three
instalments, as detailed in the Settlement Agreement, the appellant
shall withdraw all the litigations initiated by her against the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 692/2021 PageDigitally
2 of Signed
MUKTA 5GUPTABy:JUSTICE
Signing Date:14.07.2021
20:40:37
respondent and his family members and similarly, the respondent
shall do the same.

3. It has been further agreed that out of a sum of Rs.12 lakhs,
the respondent shall deposit a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs in this court on or
before 13.01.2020. Today, it has been agreed that the respondent
shall prepare a Demand Draft in the name of the appellant and
will hand over the same to her through counsel, within one week.
The balance sum of Rs.10 lakhs will be deposited by the respondent
in the Registry in accordance with the time line agreed upon and
recorded in the Settlement Agreement, i.e., in two instalments, first
instalment of Rs.5 lakhs on or before 25.04.2020 and the second
instalment of Rs.5 lakhs on or before 05.07.2020 and immediately
on the FIR registered against the respondent, being quashed and
the orders passed by the court being filed in the present appeal, the
appellant shall be entitled to withdraw the sum of Rs.10 lakhs from
the Registry.

4. It has further been agreed between the parties that till the
sum of Rs.10 lakhs is so deposited by the respondent in the
Registry, he shall continue paying maintenance @ Rs.12,000/- per
month to the appellant. Both the parties agree that they shall take
joint steps at the earliest to file a petition for seeking quashing of
the FIR. In the event the respondent reneges from the terms and
conditions recorded in the Settlement Agreement and modified
hereinabove, the appellant shall be at liberty to seek revival of the
present appeal.

5. The application is allowed in terms of the settlement
recorded in the Settlement Agreement dated 10.01.2020 and
modified as recorded hereinabove.

6. The appeal is disposed of as not pressed alongwith the pending
applications and the parties are left to bear their own costs.”

3. From the order dated 13th January, 2020 which has taken on record
the settlement agreement dated 10th January, 2020 it was agreed between the
parties that a sum of ₹12,00,000/- will be paid to the respondent No.2 by the
petitioner No.1 in lieu of her claims of maintenance, alimony, stridhan,
dowry items etc. in three instalments. The first instalment of ₹2,00,000/- was
to be paid before the Court on or before 13th January, 2020.

4. Sum of ₹2,00,000/- was paid by a demand draft dated 13th January,
2020 on 14th January, 2020 which is not in dispute. As per the settlement,
the balance amount of ₹10,00,000/- was to be deposited by the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 692/2021 PageDigitally
3 of Signed
MUKTA 5GUPTABy:JUSTICE
Signing Date:14.07.2021
20:40:37
No.1 with the registry in two instalments. First instalment of ₹5,00,000/-
being on or before 25th April, 2020 and the second instalment of ₹5,00,000/-
on or before 5th July, 2020 and immediately on the FIR registered being
quashed and orders passed by the Court, the respondent No.2 was entitled to
receive a sum of ₹10,00,000/- from the registry. It was also agreed that till
the sum of ₹10,00,000/- was deposited by the petitioner No.1 in the registry,
the petitioner would continue to pay the maintenance of ₹12,000/- per month
to the respondent No.2 whereafter the parties will file joint application
seeking quashing of the FIR.

5. The petitioner No.1 deposited a demand draft of ₹10,00,000/- with the
Registrar General of this Court on 12th February, 2020, which fact is not
disputed by the respondent No.2. However, as per respondent No.2 since no
intimation of deposit of ₹10,00,000/- was given to respondent No.2 and the
petition for quashing was not filed, the respondent No.2 was entitled to
maintenance @ ₹12,000/- per month and since the petitioner No.1 failed to
pay the maintenance of ₹12,000/- per month, she is not agreeable to the
quashing of the FIR.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the factum of
th
₹10,00,000/- being deposited with the Registrar General of this Court on 12

February, 2020 was duly informed to the learned counsel for the respondent
No.2, however, thereafter due to lockdown the quashing petition could not
be filed and was filed only on 6th February, 2021.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the petitioner
No.1 is staying with his 72 years old mother and has two children and the
learned counsel’s father is also 84 years old and thus, he is avoiding meeting
the clients physically. It is in this backdrop that there is delay in filing the
petition for quashing of FIR, though the money was deposited with the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 692/2021 PageDigitally
4 of Signed
MUKTA 5GUPTABy:JUSTICE
Signing Date:14.07.2021
20:40:37
Registrar General of this Court much before the dates on which it was
required to be deposited by the petitioner No.1.

8. Today learned counsel for the respondent No.2 states that the
respondent No.2 is not willing to go ahead with the settlement. Respondent
No.2 having availed the fruits of settlement by receiving a sum of
₹2,00,000/- and the petitioner No.1 having parted with sum of ₹10,00,000/-

on 12th February, 2020 itself, which is lying deposited with this Court,
cannot now wriggle out of the settlement on the pretext that the deposit of
the amount was not informed to the learned counsel, which fact is
vehemently disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

9. Considering the fact that the petitioner has fulfilled his part of the
compromise and the settlement was arrived at between the parties and duly
accepted before this Division Bench of this Court, the respondent No.2
cannot be permitted to abuse the process of Court and take vacillating
stands.

10. Consequently, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case,
FIR No.121/2007 under
Sections 498A/406 IPC, registered at PS Bawana
and the proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed in the interest of
justice. Respondent No.2 is at liberty to withdraw the amount of
₹10,00,000/- deposited with the Registrar General of this Court along with

interest that may have accrued thereon in case the said amount was
deposited in fixed deposit receipt.

11. Petition is disposed of.

12. Copy of the order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

JULY 14, 2021
vk
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 692/2021 PageDigitally
5 of Signed
MUKTA 5GUPTABy:JUSTICE
Signing Date:14.07.2021
20:40:37

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation