Sh Manoj Kumar & Ors. vs State (NCT Of Delhi) & Anr.

It is agreed between the parties, that respondent shall pay, the above said amount of Rs 3,50,000/- in the following manner by way of DD/RTGS/NEFT-

A) Rs 1,00,000/- to be paid by the husband (respondent to the wife(petitioner) at the time of recording of statement in First Motion.

B) Rs 1,50,000 /- (second installment) to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner at the time of recording of statement in Second Motion.

C) Rs 1,00,000/-. (Final installment) to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at the time of quashing of FIR no 439/20(u/s 498A/406/420/506/34 IPC)

6.

Parties also agree that the (wife) i.e. petitioner shall not claim, in future, any maintenance (past, present, future), any stridhan, or lay claim on any right, title or interest in the (movable and immovable properties) of the respondent or his family members.

7.

It is agreed that both the parties shall withdraw all the cases and complaints,, filed against each other from the respected Hon'ble Courts, police station, and concerned authorities.

8.

It is agreed that petition u/s. 13 (1)(ia) HMA, pending before Ld. Principal Judge, shall be withdrawn by petitioner, after recording of statement in First Motion.

8a) Parties further agree that the respondent shall file a quashing petition before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, within a month after the grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent, for quashing of FIR no 439/20(u/s 498A/406/420/506/34IPC, 3&4DP Act). The petitioner (wife) shall render cooperation in the quashing of the above said FIR.

9.

Both parties agreed that in the event of any default/or breach of terms of mutually agreed settlement the petitioner shall return any amount received and shall also pay Rs 50,000 as penalty to the respondent and similarly, if the respondent commits any default/or breach of terms and conditions of this settlement, any amount paid by him shall stand forfeited and he shall pay an additional amount of Rs 50,000 as penalty to the petitioner.. Further, the parties also agree that in case of breach of settlement, the defaulting party shall be liable to be prosecuted in contempt proceedings.

10.

It is agreed and undertake not to file any other complaint, petition, execution application etc. against each other at any time in future in any court of law in India and both the parties here by agree to abide by present settlement as having been reached without any undue influence, pressure or coercion.

11.

It is agreed between the parties that in the event of failure of the compliance of present settlement, both the parties shall be at liberty to seek revival and peruse their respective cases / remedies under law which includes proceedings mentioned herein.

12.

The parties have agreed on each and every terms as recorded in the settlement agreement, after carefully reading over and fully understanding and appreciating the contents, scope and effect thereof, as also the consequences of the breach thereof, including payment of the fine/penalty as mentioned above.

The above settlement between the parties has been arrived at out of their free will, volition and consent and without any force, pressure, undue influence, coercion or mistake /misrepresentation (both of Law and fact) from any quarter whatsoever and the settlement agreement has been correctly recorded, the said agreed terms and contents of the present settlement have been read over to the parties in their vernacular.

“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.”

“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:

29.1.

Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

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.

29.3.

Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

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.”

“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.”