Both the parties have undertaken to remain bound by the terms of settlement.” A perusal of above agreement would show that the basis of compromise between
the parties was living amicably as husband and wife at the house of husband. The
parties, in fact, had started living together from 2nd March, 2008 onwards and the
settlement was arrived at on 13th March, 2008 i.e. hardly after 11 days of living
together. The terms of compromise could not materialize and the respondent No. 2
had to leave the house of her husband. She made allegations that she was again ill-
treated at the matrimonial home and had to leave her matrimonial home due to ill-
treatment of all family members. She had given the incidents of ill treatment in her
complaint as well as in reply filed by her. She stated that her husband and other
family members did not adhere to the compromise of treating her in a proper manner
and therefore the FIR should not be quashed.
Delhi High Court
Ajit Singh & Ors. vs State & Anr. on 1 February, 2011
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of FIR no. 127 of 2002, registered under Section 498-A/323/34 IPC, P.S. Roop Nagar, Delhi. Quashing has been sought on the ground that respondent No. 2 Pushpa Rani had entered into a compromise with the petitioners through Mediation cell on 13th March, 2008 and it was agreed in the compromise that the FIR would be got quashed. It was also agreed that the petitioner No. 1 would also withdraw his divorce case pending before the Court of ADJ. However, the petitioner No. 1 withdrew his case, the respondent No. 2 did not agree for quashing of the criminal case and therefore this petition has been filed. Crl. M.C. 174 of 2010 Page 1 of 4
2. The respondent has opposed quashing of FIR on the ground that the compromise arrived at between the parties was breached by the petitioner and in view of the breach of the compromise, she was not bound by the compromise. To press his point, the petitioner relied upon Jaibir & Ors. Vs. State & Anr., 142 (2007) DLT 141 and Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agarwal and Ors., JT 2004 (10) SC 475, whereas the respondent relied upon Kamal Dhawan Vs. State and Anr., 1 (2000) DMC 22.
3. It would be advantageous to reproduce the terms agreed between the parties before Mediation Cell;
"1. It is agreed that petitioner Sh. Ajit Singh shall make a statement before the court of Sh. Deepak Jagotra for withdrawal of this petition on 15.3.08.
2. It is further agreed that as regard the case which are pending in the court of Ms Nirja Bhatia u/s 498-A where the next date of hearing is 5.4.08 and another case which is also pending in the court of Ms. Nirja Bhatia, M.M. u/s 406 IPC. Next date is 20.8.08. The wife Mrs. Pushpa Rani and husband Ajit Singh have agreed to move an
appropriate application for quashing of FIR latest by 20.8.08.
3. It is agreed between the parties that both the parties shall live amicably as husband and wife at the house of husband at house No. 4311, Gali No. 9, Ajit Nagar, Gandhi Nagar where they have started residing together since 2.3.08.
Crl. M.C. 174 of 2010 Page 2 of 4
4. Both the parties have undertaken to remain bound by the terms of settlement."
4. A perusal of above agreement would show that the basis of compromise between the parties was living amicably as husband and wife at the house of husband. The parties, in fact, had started living together from 2nd March, 2008 onwards and the settlement was arrived at on 13 th March, 2008 i.e. hardly after 11 days of living together. The terms of compromise could not materialize and the respondent No. 2 had to leave the house of her husband. She made allegations that she was again ill- treated at the matrimonial home and had to leave her matrimonial home due to ill-treatment of all family members. She had given the incidents of ill treatment in her complaint as well as in reply filed by her. She stated that her husband and other family members did not adhere to the compromise of treating her in a proper manner and therefore the FIR should not be quashed.
5. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner are those judgments where parties had separated from each-other and the compromise arrived at between the parties were based on lump sum payment to be received by the wife and the wife, after taking benefit of the compromise and receiving part payment, had refused to agree to the quashing of FIR. Present case is entirely different. Here, respondent No. 2 had agreed for quashing of FIR in order to reconcile and give a fresh chance to marriage so that she could happily live in matrimonial home. Since the atmosphere in the matrimonial home continued to be adverse and she could not live Crl. M.C. 174 of 2010 Page 3 of 4 there, I consider that she cannot be forced to withdraw the criminal case lodged by her on the basis of a failed compromise between the parties. I find no force in this petition, the petition is hereby dismissed. FEBRUARY 01, 2011 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J. acm
Crl. M.C. 174 of 2010 Page 4 of 4
No comments:
Post a Comment