* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1852/2011 % Judgment reserved on: 18th August, 2011 Judgment delivered on:23rd August, 2011 DALBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Sharma and Ms. Dimple Vivek, Advs. Versus STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Adv. for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes. SURESH KAIT, J.
1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioners has prayed
to quash the FIR No. 344/2010 under Sections
467/448/427/420/506 Indian Penal Code, 1860,
Crl.M.C.1852/2011 Page 1 of 13
registered at P.S. Nangloi, Delhi against the petitioner on
the complaint of the complainant/respondent No. 2
Smt. Surender Kumari Aora.
2. Vide settlement dated 03.11.2010, it was agreed
between the parties that the petitioner shall pay a sum of
`24,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs) by means of
demand draft in the name of respondent No. 2 which will
be paid before the court at the time of recording the
statement of the parties.
3. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2/Smt. Surender
Kumari Arora shall execute the necessary sale deed in
respect of property measuring 1000 square yards bearing
Khasra No. 33/22/2, 23/31, 53/3, 13/1 situated in
village Tikri Kalan, Delhi, i.e., the suit property after the
receipt of DD.
4. The cost of the execution of sale deed would be borne
by respondent No. 2 and she would cooperate in quashing
of the aforesaid FIR.
5. Further, it was agreed that the FIR No. 344/2010
Crl.M.C.1852/2011 Page 2 of 13
registered at PS Nangloi under Sections
467/448/427/420/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
registered against the petitioner shall be quashed.
6. It was specifically and mutually agreed that
respondent No. 2 shall cooperate with the petitioner in
quashing of the aforesaid FIR from this court as well as
will give affidavit to this effect in PS Nangloi at the time of
quashing of the FIR.
7. It was also agreed that the plaintiff would withdraw
the suit pending in the court of Civil Judge, Delhi bearing
Suit No. 63/2010 on the next date of hearing.
8. As per the settlement before the Mediation Centre,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, respondent No. 2 as well as her
legal heirs shall have no claim whatsoever in any manner
over the suit property after the aforesaid settlement.
9. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that in
pursuance of the compromise recorded before the
Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, petitioner had paid
ì 24,00,000/- to respondent No. 2 before the court of
Crl.M.C.1852/2011 Page 3 of 13
learned Civil Judge, Delhi. Thereafter, the cheques,
Demand Draft and the statement of petitioner and
respondent No. 2 were recorded on oath as is indicated in
order dated 12.11.2010 of Civil Judge, in Suit No.
10. Respondent No. 2 on oath agreed that she shall have
no objection if the aforesaid FIR against the petitioner is
11. Further, respondent No. 2 gave the undertaking
before the learned Civil court that she will not interfere in
the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and will not claim
any right with respect to the title of the suit property as
she has sold the suit property to the petitioner.
12. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that all the
demand drafts and cheques were duly encashed in favour
of respondent No. 2, however, after receiving the same,
she has shown her true colours and refuse to cooperate
with the petitioner for the purpose of quashing of the
aforesaid FIR. Further, respondent No. 2 have collided
Crl.M.C.1852/2011 Page 4 of 13
with respondent No. 1 with the sole purpose to extort
money from the petitioner.
13. Further submits, in the compelling circumstances,
the petitioner moved an anticipator bail application before
the District Judge III and the same was admitted vide
order dated 26.02.2011 with direction to join the
14. Even at the time of passing of the said order, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge enquired from
respondent No. 2 whether she had received ì 24,00,000/-
from the petitioner, to which respondent No. 2 admitted.
15. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the respondent
No.2 further submits that she is a widow, and has no
independent source of income for her and for her child as
well, accept this 1 Biga land in question.
16. Further submits that respondent No. 2 being a
helpless widow was under depression and had fear of her
life as the Petitioner had been extending threats to her
with his associates and further the petitioner in collision
Crl.M.C.1852/2011 Page 5 of 13
with other associates filed a suit for permanent injunction
titled as Sh. Ajay vs. Vijay and others vide suit No.
63/2010 in the court of learned Civil Judge, Tis Hazari
courts, Delhi, wherein respondent No. 2 was made
Defendant No. 2, therefore, in the peculiar circumstances,
the respondent No. 2 had to concede and the matter was
referred to Mediation Centre, wherein the respondent No.
2 agreed to received the meagre sum of ì 24,00,000/- in
lieu of her above said land, even though the market price
of the above said land is more than ì 1.25 crores. Had
the deal been fair, respondent No. 2 would not have raised
any objection to the conceded price.
17. Further submits that in view of the above
circumstances, the proceedings before the Mediation
Centre or proceeding in the Civil Court or the proceeding
wherein the bail was granted to the petitioner, were out of
compulsion and pathetic circumstances of respondent
No. 2, since she was under the constant fear of her life
and remained depressed, she could not initiate any
Crl.M.C.1852/2011 Page 6 of 13
proceeding against the petitioner.
18. This issue is not res integra. The same has been
settled by the Apex court in a case of Mohd. Shamim and
others vs. Smt. Nahid Begum and Anr., (2005) 3 SCC
302, has observed as under :-
“11. Before us, there is no denial or dispute as
regard the factum of entering into the
aforementioned settlement dated 14.11.2002. In
the said deed of compromise it has categorically
been averred that the same had been entered
into on the intervention of S.N. Gupta,
Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. It has also
been accepted that out of sum of Rs. 2,75,000/-
, a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- has been paid to the
First Respondent herein and the balance
amount of Rs. 50,000/- would be paid at the
time of complainant’s making statement and no
objection for quashing the FIR, which was
retained in the court as per the direction of the
court. It has further been averred that no
dispute remained between the parties regarding
the payment of dower amount (Mehar), dowry
articles, including the alleged jewellary gift etc.
Crl.M.C.1852/2011 Page 7 of 13
12. In view of the fact that the settlement was
arrived at the intervention of a judicial officer of
the rank of the Additional Sessions Judge, we
are of the opinion, the contention of the First
Respondent herein to the effect that she was not
aware of the contents thereof and the said
agreement as also the affidavit which were got
signed by her by misrepresentation of facts
must be rejected. In the facts and circumstances
of this case, we have no doubt in our mind that
the denial of execution of the said deed of
settlement is an afterthought on the part of the
Respondent No. 1 herein.
13. Ex facie the settlement between the parties
appears to be genuine. If the contention of the
First Respondent herein is to be accepted, she
would not have accepted the sum of Rs.
2,25,000/- and in any event she could have filed
an appropriate application in that behalf before
the Court of S.N. Gupta, Additional Sessions
Judge, Delhi. What was least expected of her
was that she would return the said sum of Rs.
2,25,000/- to the Appellants herein.”
19. The petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this
court in a case of Jasbir and others V. State and Anr.
142(2007) DLT 141, wherein, the parties after settlement
Crl.M.C.1852/2011 Page 8 of 13
before the learned Mediator tried to wriggle out of the
proceedings arrived at the time of the mediation
proceedings. It was held and observed in para 9 of the
above said judgment that;
“The settlement was arrive 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 as 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.”
20. The aforesaid judgment of Jasbir (supra), thereafter
relied upon by this court in IA No. 12888/2008 in CS(OS)
1495/2005 decided on 06.07.2009 and also in a case of
Purshottam Gupta and others V. The State and Anr.,
Crl.M.C.1852/2011 Page 9 of 13
in Crl. M.C. No.3230-32/2006 decided on 23.01.2008,
wherein this Court has observed as under:-
“12. Reverting to the present case, acting on the
compromise the Respondent No. 2 accepted the
amount of Rs. 4 lakhs, accepted the divorce by
way of mutual consent and also withdrew the
maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC.
However, for some unknown reason she chose
not to join in the present petition seeking
quashing of the criminal proceedings under
Sections 498A, 406/34 IPC. She was served in
the present proceedings but has chosen to
13. This court cannot but accept the statements
made on oath by Respondent No. 2 accepting
the terms of the compromise and recorded by
and forming part of the record of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court. She has also accepted the
sum of Rs. 4 lakhs in terms of the compromise.
The divorce has been granted and the criminal
case for maintenance stands withdrawn. Only
the last bit regarding the quashing of the
criminal proceedings under Sections 498A,
406/34 IPC remains. With the Respondent No. 2
not appearing in these proceedings to contest
Crl.M.C.1852/2011 Page 10 of 13
the petition, the assertions of the petitioners as
noted hereinabove remain uncontroverter.
14. This Court is Therefore inclined to follow the
aforementioned two decisions of the Supreme
Court in Ruchi Agarwal and Mohd. Shamim and
quash the pending criminal proceedings against
the petitioners. It may be mentioned that the
learned APP for the State also does not dispute
the facts stated in the petition or the law as
settled by the Supreme Court. He expresses no
objection the quashing of the FIR in view of the
21. The question before this court is whether the
settlement arrived at Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari and
thereafter the statement made on oath and also having
received the total amount of ì 24,00,000/- in lieu of the
property in question is binding upon respondent No. 2 or
22. I note the settlement took place before the Mediation
Centre, Tis Haziri on 03.11.2010. Thereafter, after the gap
of eight days i.e. on 12.11.2010 the statement of
respondent No. 2 was recorded on oath before the learned
Crl.M.C.1852/2011 Page 11 of 13
Civil Judge. Thereafter, she made statement before the
learned District Judge III also that she had received
ì 24,00,000/- from the petitioner.
23. Even a common man understands that the rates of
properties in Delhi increases on a daily basis. With the
gap of nine months it is obvious that the rates of the
aforesaid property would have increased to at least double
if not triple the amount. Therefore, increase in the rates of
property had led the respondent No. 2 to resile from
settlement affected at Mediation Centre.
24. In view of the above said conduct of respondent
No. 2, it would be an abuse of procedure of this court if
the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner
are not allowed to be quashed.
25. Keeping in view the above discussion and the law as
settled in the above discussed judgments, I quash the FIR
No. 344 dated 29.09.2010 registered under Sections
467/448/427/406 at PS Nangloi and the proceedings
Crl.M.C.1852/2011 Page 12 of 13
26. Accordingly, Criminal M.C. No.1852/2011 is
27. No order as to costs.
SURESH KAIT, J
August 23, 2011
Crl.M.C.1852/2011 Page 13 of 13