What emerges from the above that husband and wife had settled their disputes
before the Mediation Center and had signed the ‘Settlement Agreement’, which has even
been acted upon by them. Petitioner no. 1 has paid the entire settled amount to the
respondent no.2, inasmuch as, parties have even obtained a decree of divorce by mutual
consent. In my view after having settled the matter through the process of mediation,
which has even acted upon, parties cannot be permitted to backtrack from the same as it
will negate the aims and objectives of the whole process of mediation. Respondent no.2 is
bound by the terms of the settlement, as contained in the Settlement Agreement arrived at
between them before the Mediation Centre, more particularly when she has already
availed the benefits of the same, that is, having received the settled amount. Withdrawal
of consent by the respondent no.2 on some innocuous ground is impermissible
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
W.P.(CRL) 603/2012
Decided on: 1st August, 2012
ADITYA CHANDERSHEKHAR PANDIT
& ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. A.B. Dial, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Thakur Sumit, Adv.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
A.K. PATHAK, J. (Oral)
1. By this petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India read with Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 petitioners have prayed that the FIR
No.273/2010 under Sections 380/498-A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read
with Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”) and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom be
quashed.
2. Petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 married each other in a temple on 18th May,
2007. Subsequently, they got their marriage registered in the Office of Registrar of
Marriages, Bandra, Mumbai. At the time of their marriage, petitioner no.1 was a
widower; whereas respondent no.2 was a divorcee. Petitioner no. 2 is son of petitioner
no.1 from his first marriage. Petitioner no.3 is wife of petitioner no. 2, that is, daughterin-law of petitioner no.1. Petitioner no. 4 is a friend of petitioner no.1; whereas petitioner
nos. 5 and 6 are parents of petitioner no.3, and parents in-law of petitioner no.2.
3. It appears that relations between the respondent no. 2 and petitioner no. 1 got
strained with the passage of time. Respondent no. 2 made a written complaint dated 13th
November, 2010 at the Police Station Safdarjung Enclave pursuant whereof FIR
No.273/2010 under Section 380 IPC was registered. Respondent no. 2 alleged therein
that when she along with petitioner no. 1 came to Delhi, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were
opposed to her staying in the house. Petitioner nos. 5 and 6 also joined the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 in harassing the respondent no.2. Petitioner no. 5 told father of petitioner that the
respondent no. 2 cannot live in the house as she was a woman belonging to scheduled
caste whereas they were pandits. Castist remarks were passed against the respondent
no.2. Though, father of the petitioner no. 1 impressed upon the petitioners that respondent
no. 2, being legally wedded wife of petitioner no.1, had all the rights to stay in the house
but to no effect. Petitioners continued to harass her. Respondent no. 2 went to Mumbai
and when she returned Delhi on 13th November, 2010 she found her bedroom ransacked
and five bangles, silver idols worth `1100/- and clothes missing.
4. Initially, FIR 273/2010 was registered under Section 380 Indian Penal Code.
However, Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC read with Section 3 of the Act were added
subsequently.
5. Petitioners filed a writ petition being W.P.(Crl.) No. 1869/2010 wherein parties
were relegated to the Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre (“Mediation
Centre”, for short) vide order dated 14th February, 2011. In the Mediation Centre
petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 settled their disputes through the process of
mediation, on the terms and conditions as stipulated in the Settlement Agreement dated
2nd May, 2011 which was duly signed by them besides their counsels and learned
Mediator. Relevant terms of settlement read as under:-
“1. That the parties hereto have agreed and undertaken to dissolve their marriage by
way of seeking divorce by mutual consent from the court of competent jurisdiction at
New Delhi and shall take appropriate steps and file the first motion for divorce by mutual
consent, in accordance with law within 20 days of date of execution of this Settlement
Agreement. The respondent No.2 has unconditionally agreed and undertaken to coordinate and co-operate with Shri Aditya Pandit (Petitioner No.1) and his lawyer in this
regard and sign and execute petition, affidavit and such other documents as and when
required without any protest and/or demur, reservations and delays. Petitioner no.1 has
hereby agreed to pay to the respondent No.2, a further sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees
Fifteen Thousand Only) in all, as travelling expenses from Mumbai to Delhi, for
appearances before the Matrimonial Court at New Delhi, at the time of recording of her
statements under 13 B (1) and (2) of HMA. The amount shall however be paid at the
time of first motion.
2. That the petitioner no.1 has agreed to pay to the Respondent NO.2 and the
Respondent No.2 has willingly agreed to accept a total sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Lacs Only) as full and final settlement towards Maintenance (past, present and
future), Alimony, Istridhan (if any), Compensations including all claim (s) and/or
demand(s) of every nature in following manner.
i) Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Only) payable before the learned Mediator at the
time of execution of this settlement deed, which Smt. Chitra Anant Salunke (Respondent
No.2) hereby acknowledge to have received vide cheque No.228401 dated 02.05.2011
drawn on Axix Bank ltd., Green Park, Main Branch, New Delhi, favouring her. ii) The balance of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lacs Only ) shall be paid by Shri
Aditya Pandi (Petitioner no.1) in 4 (four) equal instalment of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four
Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) each, each instalment becoming due and payable after 45
days of the last instalment as summarized herein below.
a) First instalment of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) on
June 17, 2011.
b) Second instalment of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) on
August 3, 2011.
c) Third instalment of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) on
September 18, 2011 and;
d) Fourth instalment of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) at
the time of recording of the statement under Section 13 B (2) of HMA before the
Matrimonial Court concerned for dissolving the marriage.
Smt. Chitra Anant Salunke (Respondent No.2) hereby acknowledge having
received 3 (three) post dated cheques for Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs Fifty
Thousand Only) each bearing Nos. 228402, 228403 and 228404 dated 17.06.2011,
03.08.2011 and 18.09.2011 respectively drawn on Axis Bank Ltd. Green Park, Main
Branch, New Delhi, favouring her.
3. That Smt.Chitra Anant Salunke (Respndent No.2) has agreed and undertaken that
she has no past, present or future claim/demand by way of Maintenance, Alimony,
Stridhan, Compensation etc. from Shri Aditya Pandit (Petitioner No.1) and further
declares that no amount other then Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs Only) is payable
by Shri Aditya Pandit (Petitioner No.1) to Smt. Chitra Anant Salunke (Respondent No.2)
in the manner aforesaid, after signing this Settlement Agreement.
4. That Smt.Chitra Anant Salunke (Respondetn No.2) has agreed and undertaken to
co-operate and co-ordinate and affirm before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on the date
fixed i.e. 03.05.2011 in the Writ Petition (Crl.) No.1869 of 2010 and/or in any other
proceedings that all the disputes have been settled in the mediation proceedings, I
presence of the learned mediator, who recorded the settlement and as such, shall jointly
pray for quashing of the aforesaid FIR and the Complaint. Respondent No.2 further
undertakes to co-operate, if required, in getting the FIR No.273/2010 PS Safdarjung
Enclave quashed.
5. That Smt.Chitra Anant Salunke (Respondetn No.2) has undertaken to handover
the original claimed alleged will dated November 12, 2008 of Late Shri Chander Shekhar
Pandit to the Mediator to be handed over to Petitioner No.1 subject to other beneficiaries
approval. Respondent No.2 however undertakes not to use the aforesaid Will or any copy
thereof in any manner in future. Petitioner No.1 also undertakes not to supply any documents/records of the present case (W.P.Crl. No.1869/2010) to Mr.Virendernath
Bhagwatprasad Tiwari.
6. That Smt.Chitra Anant Salunke (Respondetn No.2) hereby declares that she has
no claim of any kind whatsoever in any of the moveable and immoveable properties,
ancestral and/ or self acquired, of Petitioners and shall not claim any right, title and/or
interest at any point of time and that with this settlement all the disputes, differences
and/or claims, if any, with the petitioners have been finally settled in terms hereof.
7. That the parties to this Agreement have agreed and undertaken to forthwith in
writing all complaints/cases, if any, made to various authorities including before the
Police against each other and/or their relatives and other Petitioners before this Hon’ble
Court, unconditionally. The parties hereto have agreed and undertaken not to file any
case / complaint of whatsoever nature against each other in future.
8. That by signing this Agreement the parties hereto declare tht they have no
outstanding and further claim(s) and/or demand(s) against each other and their disputes
and differences have been settled finally hereto through the process of Mediation/
Conciliation.
9. That the parties hereto undertake to this Hon’ble Court to remain bound by this
terms and conditions set out in the present Settlement Agreement and shall abide by the
same and shall not dispute the same in future”.
6. Petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 have even acted upon terms of settlement, as
contained in the Settlement Agreement dated 2nd May, 2011. They have already
obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent from the Family Court, Saket on 28th
February, 2012, inasmuch as, entire settled amount stands paid to respondent no.2, which
fact has not been disputed.
7. It is also borne out from the records that the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2
had jointly filed an application in the said writ petition for quashing of the FIR. The said
application was signed by the petitioner no. 1 as well as respondent no.2, inasmuch as,
was supported by the affidavit of respondent no.2. The said writ petition was dismissed
as withdrawn as the petitioners had sought quashing of FIR on merits, however, liberty
was granted to the petitioners to file appropriate petition for quashing of the FIR on the
basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. ‘Settlement Agreement’ was taken
on record in the said case.
8. That is how petitioners are before this Court by way of present writ petition.
Respondent no.2 though had given her consent for quashing of FIR in the earlier writ
petition but opposes quashing in these proceedings, on the ground that the petitioner no.1
has violated Clause 5 of the Settlement Agreement. It is alleged that despite having given
undertaking that he will not supply the documents relating to present case to Mr.
Virender Nath Bhagwat Prasad Tiwari he has handed over the documents to aforesaid person. Petitioner denies having supplied any documents to Mr. Virender Nath Bhagwat
Prasad Tiwari.
9. What emerges from the above that husband and wife had settled their disputes
before the Mediation Center and had signed the ‘Settlement Agreement’, which has even
been acted upon by them. Petitioner no. 1 has paid the entire settled amount to the
respondent no.2, inasmuch as, parties have even obtained a decree of divorce by mutual
consent. In my view after having settled the matter through the process of mediation,
which has even acted upon, parties cannot be permitted to backtrack from the same as it
will negate the aims and objectives of the whole process of mediation. Respondent no.2 is
bound by the terms of the settlement, as contained in the Settlement Agreement arrived at
between them before the Mediation Centre, more particularly when she has already
availed the benefits of the same, that is, having received the settled amount. Withdrawal
of consent by the respondent no.2 on some innocuous ground is impermissible.
10. In Jaibir & Ors. vs. State & Anr. 142 (2007) DLT 141, a Single Judge of this
court, in the similar circumstances, held thus “He has been the beneficiary of the
settlement inasmuch as the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. are withdrawn by
Sarita and proceedings under Sections 498A/406/34, IPC are also quashed in view of the
cooperation of Sarita. This being a complete package, the complainant cannot turn around
and oppose the petition after he agreed for quashing of these proceedings at the time of
mediation proceedings. There is another aspect which needs to be emphasized. The
settlement was arrived at during mediation proceedings. The Legislature has amended
Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the year 2002. There is an all round attempt
by the Legislature and Judiciary, as well as the Executive, to promote the settlement of
disputes through the process of Mediation. Therefore, once disputes between the parties
have been settled by the process of mediation, it would be in the public interest as well to
attach importance to such a process and treat the settlement as a solemn settlement.
Otherwise, the movement of mediation may itself suffer if the parties are given to
understand that even after they agree for settlement, one of the parties can still back out.
In Mohd. Shamim & Ors. vs. Nahid Begum (Smt.) & Anr. (2005) 3 SCC 302, Supreme
Court has quashed the FIR in somewhat similar circumstances, even when wife attempted
to withdraw her consent. In Ruchi Agarwal vs. Amit Kumar Agarwal & Ors. (2005) 3
SCC 299 similar view was taken and FIR was quashed.
11. For the foregoing reasons, FIR No.273/2010 under Sections 380/498-A/406/34
IPC read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
12. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Crl. M.A. 4965/2012 (Stay)
13. Disposed of as infructuous.
Sd/-
A.K. PATHAK, J.
AUGUST 01, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment