Delhi High Court
Ajit Singh & Ors. vs Pushpa Rani on 1 February, 2011
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 20th January, 2011
Date of Order: 1st February, 2011
+CRL. M.C. 173 of 2010
%
01.02.2011
AJIT SINGH & ORS. ... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ravinder Tyagi and Mr. Manish
Sharma, Advocates.
Versus
PUSHPA RANI ... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ratnesh Tiwari, Advocate
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for
quashing of complaint case bearing No. 34/2006 under Section
406/452/323/504/506/147 IPC, P.S. Banna Devi, District Aligarh, U.P.
This case was transferred for trial to Delhi under orders of the Supreme
Court and is presently pending before a Metropolitan Magistrate.
Quashing of this criminal case has been sought on the ground that
respondent 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 this case would be got quashed. It was also
agreed that the petitioner No. 1 would withdraw his divorce case pending
before the Court of ADJ. However, the petitioner No. 1 withdrew his case,
the respondent did not agree for quashing of the criminal case and
therefore this petition has been filed.
2. The respondent has opposed quashing of criminal case 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.
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 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
complaint case 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 had agreed for
quashing of criminal case in order to reconcile and give a fresh chance to
the marriage so that she could happily live in matrimonial home. Since
the atmosphere in the matrimonial home continued to be same and she
could not live there, I consider that she cannot be forced to withdraw the
criminal complaint lodged by her on the basis of compromise arrived at
between the parties.
I find no force in this petition, the petition is hereby dismissed.
FEBRUARY 01, 2011 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
acm
