Nitesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs State NCT Of Delhi & Anr.

The present case has been referred by the Court of Ms. Anam Rais Khan, Ld. JMFC, Mahila Court-01, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.

WHEREAS the Complainant Ms. Sanju Kumari Sharma

(hereinafter referred to as the First Party) was married to Respondent No.1 Sh. Nitesh Kumar Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the Second Party) on 22.02.2023 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. No child was born from the said wedlock. Due to matrimonial disputes, the parties could not stay together and started living separately from each other since 30.06.2023.

AND WHEREAS on the request of the parties, the present matter was referred for mediation, in which process of mediation had been explained to both the parties. Single and joint sessions were held. After discussions, both parties have agreed to settle all their disputes with regard to all the above-mentioned matters, in full and final on the following terms and conditions :-

1.

It is agreed between the parties that since there is no chance of their re-union, both the parties have decided to get separation from each other by way of mutual divorce.

2.

It is agreed between the parties that Second Party/husband is ready to pay the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh only) towards full and final settlement of all her claims including maintenance (past, present and future), permanent alimony, stridhan etc. and in respect of all the above-mentioned matters.

3.

It is agreed between the parties that the above-mentioned Divorce Petition bearing HMA No.1779/2024 shall be withdrawn by the Second Party on or before filing the first motion divorce petition on mutual consent.

4.

It is agreed between the parties that Second Party/husband shall pay the above-mentioned settled amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh only) to the First Party in two installments by way of DD/NEFT/RTGS/Cash against proper receipt/Any other electronic mode.

5.

It is agreed between the parties that Second Party/husband shall return/hand over the Motorcycle bearing Registration No.DL9SCH5698, Make Honda SP 125 to the First Party at the time of recording the statements of the Parties in first motion. Further, the RC, Insurance and Pollution Certificate of the said vehicle shall be handed over to the First Party by the Second Party. It is further agreed between the parties that all the challans of the said vehicle, if any, shall be cleared by the Second Party till handing over the said vehicle. If the Second Party fails to clear the challan of the said vehicle, he shall pay the challan amount to the First Party so that she can clear the same.

6.

It is agreed between the parties that Second Party/husband shall make the payment of first installment of Rs.3,50,000/- to the First Party at the time of recording of statements of the parties on first motion of mutual divorce petition before the court concerned which shall be filed in the first week of October, 2025.

7.

It is further agreed between the parties that both the parties will jointly file the second motion divorce petition within the statutory period, as per law and Second party/husband shall pay second installment of Rs.3,50,000/- to the First party at the time of recording the statement of second motion of divorce proceedings before the court concerned. Both the parties are also at liberty to seek waiver of the mandatory cooling off period of 6 months from the appropriate Court, for which both the parties shall co-operate. Both the parties shall co-operate with each other in preparation of petition for divorce by mutual consent.

8.

FIR No.466/2024, U/s 498A/406/34 IPC, PS Badarpur has been registered against the following accused persons on the complaint of First Party :-

- (i). Sh. Nitesh Kumar Sharma/Husband/Second party

- (ii). Sh. Harishankar Sharm/Father of Second party

- (iii). Smt. Rita Devi/Mother of Second party

- (iv). Ms. Pushpa Sharma/Sister of Second party

- (v). Ms. Amisha Sharma/Sister of Second party

As one of the sections in above-mentioned FIR is non-compoundable in nature, hence it cannot be settled through mediation. However, it is agreed upon between the parties that the Second Party alongwith all the other co-accused shall move for quashing of above-mentioned FIR before the Hon'ble High Court within 30 days after recording of statement for second motion and the First Party shall fully co-operate in the said proceedings. It is further agreed between the parties that the First Party shall sign his/her affidavit of no objection, appear and do all possible acts required in order to get the above-mentioned FIR as well as proceedings emanating therefrom quashed qua all the accused persons. The litigation expenses of divorce and quashing shall be borne by the Second Party/accused persons.

9.

That both the parties undertake not to interfere in each other's life or future prospects or malign each other or their families over social media, internet or by any means and both the parties will not contact each other in any way like Whatsapp, email, telephone, and any other electronic mode, etc. or never contact or try to meet their family members, relatives and friends in future for any purposes whatsoever. It is further agreed between the parties that both parties shall not misuse any photograph or video of each other. The Second Party also undertakes not to visit the office, home, business premises of the first party in the future and vice versa.

10.

It is further agreed between the parties that no Party shall back out from the present Settlement Agreement and shall co-operate each other to get the mutual divorce in terms of the present Settlement Agreement. If any Party to the present Settlement Agreement fails to co-operate at any stage of proceedings, the other Party shall be at liberty to initiate all the legal proceedings against the faulty Party on account of breach of the present Settlement Agreement by way of suing the other Party in accordance with the law of the land.

11.

It is also agreed by the parties that upon compliance of the above-mentioned terms and conditions of this settlement, parties shall not file any civil/criminal case against each other or their family members pertaining to their marriage and/or with regard to their respective movable or immovable property/properties, whatsoever.

12.

It is also agreed between the parties that pursuant to the settlement reached between the parties, all the matters/cases/complaints (civil/criminal), which are pending between the parties before any Court/Authorities/Forum shall be deemed to have been settled or to have been withdrawn post signing of this settlement.

“58.

Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.” (emphasis supplied)

“29.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: ***

29.2.

When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i)

ends of justice, or

(ii)

to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. ***

29.4.

On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5.

While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.” (emphasis supplied)

“14.

The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S. Joshi [(2003) 4 SCC 675: 2003 SCC (Cri) 848], this Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings where dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is entered into between the parties who are willing to settle their differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said decision is directly applicable to the case on hand and the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement arrived at.

15.

In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.” (emphasis supplied)

“14.

Furthermore, this Court has consistently taken the view that where the matrimonial relationship has come to an end by way of divorce, and the parties have since settled into their respective lives, criminal prosecution emanating from that past relationship ought not to be permitted to linger as a means of harassment. In the cases of Mala Kar v. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal No. 1684 of 2024 dated 19.03.2024 (“Mala Kar”) and Arun Jain v. State of NCT of Delhi, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9178 of 2018 dated 01.04.2024 (“Arun Jain”), this Court, while exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord against the husband. The Court took note of the fact that the couple therein had divorced and held that in such a situation, to continue with criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law. The reasoning adopted therein applies with equal force to the facts of the present case. …” (emphasis supplied)