Coimbatore Woman & Family arrested for cheating prospective grooms !! Crores looted | The Hindu

The Central Crime Branch of the Coimbatore City police has arrested a young woman, her parents and brother on the charge of duping an NRI engineer of ₹41 lakh by promising to marry him.

The police said that the woman, who claimed to be an actor, and her family have duped six prospective grooms of ₹1.42 crore and jewellery worth ₹20 lakh under the pretext of marriage.

The main accused P. Shruthi alias Mythili Venkatesh, 21, of Sri Ram Avenue on P.N. Palayam Road, her father Prasanna Venkatesh, mother Chitra alias Amutha Venkatesh and brother Subash landed in the custody of the police during the investigation of a complaint filed by Balamurugan of Salem, one of the victims cheated by them.

According to the police, Balamurugan and Shruthi got in touch through a matrimony website. Balamurugan gave them ₹41 lakh between May 24, 2017, and January 1, 2018, towards expenses.

The police said that subsequently, he learned that the woman and her family had cases of cheating against them and filed a complaint.

Assault

According to the police, a team of police went to the apartment of Shruthi and her parents around 9 p.m. on Wednesday to arrest them.

However, the four accused and M. Sabarinath, 23, of Anna Nagar West in Chennai assaulted them. A constable from the Armed Reserve wing was injured.

In February 2016, Shruthi and her parents were booked for cheating a software engineer Santhosh Kumar from Namakkal of ₹43 lakh.

Later, in March 2016, they were booked for duping E. Arul Kumar Gururaja, of Chidambaram of jewellery worth ₹20 lakh. The police said that the accused had cheated Sasikumar from Namakkal of ₹22 lakh, Sundar from Nagapattinam of ₹15 lakh and Rajkamal from Dindigul of ₹21 lakh.

The accused were produced in court and remanded in judicial custody.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/woman-family-arrested-for-cheating-prospective-grooms/article22424250.ece

Advertisements

Fake rapes surge in Haryana. 5 arrests in 4 days ! Gangs extorting with obscene videos

5 honeytrap gangs busted in 4 days, false rape cases also on rise in Haryana

These suspects largely operate as gangs and most of these were busted at a time the state is reeling from a spate of crimes against women and minor girls, especially rape and murder.

Police data show crime against women is rising in Haryana, but every three in 10 rape cases registered in the state have turned out to be false.

Updated: Jan 20, 2018 12:19 IST

By Hardik Anand, Hindustan Times, Rohtak

The Haryana Police in the last four days have busted five gangs who after laying a honeytrap lodged false rape cases against men to extort money from them.

As many as 15 people, including a couple and a brother-sister duo, were arrested from five districts in this connection.

Incidentally, the series of alleged false cases has come to the fore at a time when the state has been witnessing a spate of crimes against women and minor girls, with cases of gang-rapes and murders reported from Jind, Panipat, Faridabad, Hisar, Fatehabad and other districts in the last few days.

Senior police officials said while they were trying to ensure that crimes against women were properly addressed, they have also issued instructions to cops to identify women lodging false cases so they can be booked under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code for framing innocent men, wasting police’s time and bringing disrepute to the state.

In one such case, the Jhajjar police on Wednesday arrested a gang of three women and one man who had been threatening a Najafgarh youth of lodging a false rape case against him if he failed to give them ₹1.5 lakh. The police said the victim had filed a complaint that he was befriended recently by one of the accused women and she called him to her residence in Jhajjar on the pretext of some work. At her house, she was joined by two other women and a man who forcefully made his obscene video and demanded ₹1.5 lakh from him.

Jhajjar superintendent of police (SP) B Satheesh Balan said they prepared a raiding team that caught the accused red-handed while the victim was handing them money.

In Rohtak district, the police arrested a brother-sister duo on Wednesday for demanding ₹95 lakh from a city-based contractor to withdraw a false case they had filed against 19 members of his family. The accused duo, Ravi and Shalu, were trying to cash in on contractor Mahender’s illicit relationship with their sister Meenakshi.

On Tuesday, the Bhiwani police had arrested a woman and a man who were demanding ₹6.5 lakh and a 150-square yard plot from Suresh of Tosham to withdraw the ‘false’ rape case they had filed against him. The accused had on January 9 lodged a case of rape and violence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against Suresh. Acting on Suresh’s complaint, the police caught the two red-handed while accepting the money.

In yet another case, the Sirsa police had on Monday arrested five members of a gang, including two women, who were demanding ₹10 lakh from a person after making his obscene video.

The Jind police had on Sunday arrested a Punjab couple who was demanding ₹25 lakh from Narwana village youth to withdraw a rape case against him, under which he was lodged in jail from past two months.

While data shows crime against women is on a rise in Haryana, a police study analyzing the crime incidents of a particular period found that every 3 in 10 rape cases registered in the state turn out to be false during investigation.

Jan 17, Jhajjar: 3 women among 4 held for making obscene video of youth, demanding Rs 1.5 lakh

Jan 17, Rohtak: Brother-sister duo held for demanding Rs 95 lakh from contractor to withdraw false case

Jan 16, Bhiwani: Woman among 2 arrested for demanding Rs 6.5 lakh and 150 sq yard plot to withdraw false rape case

Jan 15, Sirsa: 2 women among 5 arrested for making obscene video of man, demanding Rs 10 lakh

Jan 14, Jind: Punjab couple arrested for demanding Rs 25 lakh from youth to withdraw false rape case

Copyright © HT Media Limited. All rights reserved.

Fake #498a wife’s #transfer petition on HMOP #dismissed by #Madras #HighCourt

Aunt and uncle arrested in wee hours by police, on the basis of a fake #498a file MUCH after matirmonial discord started

US based NRI husband & relatives accused

HC refuses wife’s transfer petition !!


 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20.01.2009

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL

Tr.C.M.P.No.361 of 2008

Nivashini Mohan .. Petitioner

Versus

R.Nivendran .. Respondent

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to withdraw and transfer the H.M.O.P.No.311 of 2008 from the file of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai to the file of the Sub-Court, Chengalpattu to be tried along with H.M.O.P.No.201/2008.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar

For Respondent : Mr.Thomas T.Jacob

ORDER

The petitioner/wife has filed this Transfer C.M.P.361/2008 praying for issuance of an order by this Court, directing the transfer of HMOP.311/2008 from the fire of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai to the file of the Sub-Court, Chengalpattu to be tried along with HMOP.201/2008.

  1. The petitioner/wife in her affidavit in the Transfer Petition has averred that her marriage with the respondent/husband has taken place on 2.7.2006 according to Hindu Rites and Customs at Vemubuli Amman Temple, Aminjikarai, Chennai, though the marriage has been formally registered on 28.06.2006 and later by the threat and compulsion of the respondent/husband registered the marriage at Sub-Registrar Office, Pammal on 26.09.2005 and because of the continuous harassment and demand of dowry by the respondent/husband and his family members, she has faced cruelty and mental agony and that after her marriage, within a short span of three months. She has been driven out of the matrimonial house three times by the family members of the respondent/husband and that she has been compelled to give up her job and that she has been threatened to abort even at the very early stage of her pregnancy and that she has been forced to locate a rented house near her office at Perungudi on intimation to the respondent/husband, as per the advise of the Doctor and that she shifted her residence on 1.12.2006 and that having waited for two months, she sent E-mails to the respondent/husband narrating all the ill-treatments and cruelty meted out to her. The respondent/husband filed HMOP.352/2007 before the Principal Family Court, Chennai under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging as if the petitioner/wife has refused to join with him and on 18.4.2007, the said HMOP has been dismissed based on the endorsement made by the parties and the respondent/husband has come to Perungudi after three days on 21.04.2007 and that during the said stay of the respondent/husband from 21.04.2007, he has threatened the petitioner/wife to give consent for divorce or comply with the demand of his family members and after the birth of the male child, the respondent/husband with his family members identified a rented house, an unfinished one near his parents residence at Arumbakkam and that she has been asked to vacate the house at Perungudi on 31.07.2007 and that the respondent/husband has brought her and the child to Vandalur at the residence of her parents etc.
  2. It is the further case of the petitioner/wife that she has been required to come with the 40 days infant child to Arumbakkam on 8.8.2007 to the newly rented house in the second floor at Arumbakkam and on believing the assurance of the respondent/husband, when she went there on 8.8.2007, the respondent/husband has not taken care of her and her child and used to go to his parents house even without providing food etc and that the child’s eyes were affected and that the respondent/husband sent her out from the matrimonial house on 11.08.2007, on the ill advise of his family members.

  3. Eversince the time she has been driven out by her husband, she has been living at Vandalur with the help of her parents and that she made frequent efforts to contact the respondent/husband to take clothes and medicines for the child etc and later she shifted her house to Tharamani near her office after intimating the same to the respondent/husband and she came to know that the respondent/husband was in abroad in U.S.A during that time. But her efforts to contact him has ended in vain and later she gave a complaint before the Protection Officer, Teynampet, Chennai requesting for arranging a reunion with the respondent/husband, but he participated in the enquiry on 31.1.2007, but failed to yield the advise of the Protection Officer and subsequently, she has been perforced to file a criminal complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai and the same being forwarded to the Inspector of Police, W7-All Women Police Station, Anna Nagar, Chennai which culminated in filing of charge sheet in C.C.10989/2008 against the respondent and his family members and prior to that she has filed HMOP.201/2008 before the Sub-Court, Chengalpattu under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for restitution of conjugal rights and that the respondent has entered appearance through his counsel and later, she has been informed by her friend that a Paper Publication, dated 5.7.2008 has been effected by the respondent as a public notice for her appearance on 2.9.2008 in a case before the II Additional Family Court, Chennai in O.P.311/2008.

  4. With this background, the learned counsel for the petitioner/wife submits that the petitioner/wife has to spend a minimum of 4 hours for her travel from Chengalpattu to the court at Chennai for her appearance and further that as per the Family Court proceedings, the personal appearance of the parties on the date of hearing is mandatory and as such, the wife may not be able to appear before the II Additional Family Court on every hearing date, since she has a child and living near Chengalpattu and therefore prays for allowing the Transfer Original Petition in the interest of justice.

  5. The respondent/husband has filed a detailed counter inter alia stating that he sent a mail on 16.01.2007, requesting the petitioner/wife to sort out differences if any by going before the marital counselling. But the same has been shunted with retaliatory mails abusing him and his parents and that he filed O.P.352/2007 before the Principal Family Court for restitution of conjugal rights and after the disposal of the complaint, the petitioner/wife has refused to live in his house stating many allegations against his parents and sister that they would be ill treating her etc. and when there were vast difference of opinion at the end of the counselling both have agreed to start a new life forgetting the past and also with an agreement to accept each others parents etc. and that because of the attitude of the petitioner/wife, the marriage has ultimately broken and that the petitioner/wife has filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act before the Protection Officer, Teynampet, Chennai against him, his parents, sister, uncle and aunt and he has been in USA during this period and since he returned to Chennai, he informed the Protection Officer who has taken part in the enquiry and later he filed O.P.311/2008 on the file of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai on 1.12.2008 and in the meanwhile, the petitioner/wife has filed a false complaint before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai under the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Domestic Violence Act and a First Information Report has been registered on the evening of 15.04.2008 and that his parents, sister, uncle and aunt have been taken into custody on 16.4.2008 early morning and that a charge sheet has been filed in C.C.10981/2008 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court and that complaint has been filed against the suspended Inspector of Police Mrs.Rajalakshmi for her partial attitude and non-investigation of the case as per the Criminal Procedure Code and the same is pending enquiry by the Directorate of Prosecution.

  6. Continuing further, with a view to harass the respondent/husband and his family another case C.C.356/2008 has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu by the petitioner/wife in a different jurisdiction upon the same cause of action. When a complaint has been preferred to the Protection Officer, Chennai under the same act is pending and that the petitioner has subjected herself to the jurisdiction of Chennai in the marital case earlier when she has been residing in a residence outside the jurisdiction of the Court and that she has also sought the relief before the Protection Officer, Chennai, when she has been residing outside the jurisdiction and in C.C.10981/2008 pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, she has sought the relief, while she has been outside the jurisdiction and that the restitution of conjugal rights proceedings instituted in Chengalpattu and therefore, the respondent/husband prays for dismissing the transfer petition.

  7. It is true that in transfer of matrimonial petitions, convenience of the wife must be given the prime importance. The important principle for exercising of the powers under Section 24 of the C.P.C. is the convenience and inconvenience of the parties. The question of expediency will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the paramount consideration for exercise of the power must be to meet the ends of justice. For the purpose of transfer, the balance of convenience of the parties should be considered. Moreover, the petition under Section 24 of C.P.C. is not to be dealt with lightly and the transfer of a case from one court to another should not be granted readily for any fancied notion of the petitioning party. For the purpose of transfer, a court of law is required to find out whether a particular party has chosen a forum in utter disregard to the convenience of the parties for some ulterior object and in abuse of her position as a arbiter litus. The basic principle is for exercise of power under Section 24 of the CPC. is the convenience and the inconvenience of the parties.

  8. The prayer of the petitioner/wife is that she was residing at Guduvancherry and OP.201/2008 is pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Chengalpattu and that her husband, namely, the respondent has filed O.P.311/2008 on the file of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai and that she has not been in a position to appear before the Family Court, Chennai inasmuch as the Court at Chennai is very near to her residence and that she has to spend a minimum of 4 hours for travel from Chengalpattu to Chennai to appear before the II Additional Family Court, Chennai in connection with the hearing of O.P.311/2008 and therefore, the application for transfer may be allowed by this Court to promote the substantial cause of justice.

  9. Admittedly, the respondent/husband is facing some cases C.C.356/2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu, C.C.10981/2008 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai and in between the parties, matrimonial Original Petitions are pending. The fact that the petitioner/wife has earlier subjected herself to the jurisdiction of Chennai in a matrimonial case, when she has been residing in a residence outside the Court jurisdiction cannot be disputed. Furthermore, she has also sought the relief of Protection Officer in Chennai, while she has been residing outside the jurisdiction. The case in C.C.10981/2008 pending on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court has been initiated, when the petitioner’s residence has been outside the courts jurisdiction. The petitioner/wife has also filed C.C.356/2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. One cannot brush aside an important fact that the HMOP.201/2008 filed by the petitioner/wife before the Sub-Court, Chengalpattu is only after the filing of the two criminal cases.

  10. Be that as it may, on a careful consideration of the respective contentions, this Court is of the considered view that it is not possible for this court to allow the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition inasmuch as the balance of convenience is not in favour of the petitioner and in that view of the matter, the petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. However liberty is given to the petitioner/wife to file necessary application before the II Additional Family Court, Chennai, where O.P.311/2008 is pending and seek exemption of her personal appearance and on such application is being filed by the petitioner/wife, the II Additional Family Court, Chennai is directed to consider the same on merits, after providing due opportunity to the respondent/husband to file his counter in the manner known to law. The II Additional Family Court, Chennai is directed to dispose of the HMOP.311/2008 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Moreover, the parties are directed to co-operate with the II Additional Family Court with regard to the completion of the proceedings.

.01.2009 Index : Yes/No.

Internet: Yes/No.

M.VENUGOPAL, J.

 

tsi

To

  1. The II Additional Family Judge, Chennai.
  • The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

  • Tr.C.M.P.No.361 of 2008

     

    tsi

    #498a against 7 relatives quashed. #Patna #HC. #FakeCase as husband said #Talaq

    498a against 7 relatives quashed. #Patna #HC

    In this beautiful case, the Patna High Court, watches, a fake dowry case, filed against at least seven members of the husband’s family… The Wife files a fake 498a case, against eight people including the husband, just because the husband set TALAQ to her… There are no clear allegations, and only omnibus mention of all the relatives … The magistrate takes cognizance, and issues process, which appealed at the high court and quashed by the hon HC

    ————–

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

    Criminal Miscellaneous No.34681 of 2013

    Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1428 Year- 2011 Thana – SIWAN COMPLAINT CASE District- SIWAN

    1. Md. Javed Khan @ Javed Khan S/O Kadir Khan Resident Of Village Umarganj, Police Station Balia, District Balia (Uttar Pradesh).
    2. Juber Khan S/O Kadir Khan Resident Of Village Umarganj, Police Station Balia, District Balia (Uttar Pradesh).
    3. Tarana Khatoon @ Tarannum D/O Kadir Khan Resident Of Village Umarganj, Police Station Balia, District Balia (Uttar Pradesh).
    4. Mahejabin D/O Kadir Khan Resident Of Village Umarganj, Police Station Balia, District Balia (Uttar Pradesh).
    5. Maheleka @ Maheleka Praveen D/O Kadir Khan Resident Of Village Umarganj, Police Station Balia, District Balia (Uttar Pradesh).
    6. Najma Khatoon @ Najma W/O Kadir Khan Resident Of Village Umarganj, Police Station Balia, District Balia (Uttar Pradesh).
    7. Kadir Khan S/O Late Abdul Hamid Khan Resident Of Village Umarganj, Police Station Balia, District Balia (Uttar Pradesh).
    8. Khurshid Khan S/O Kadir Khan Resident Of Village Umarganj, Police Station Balia, District Balia (Uttar Pradesh). . …. Petitioner/s

    Versus

    1. The State Of Bihar.

    2. Hasina Khatoon D/O Bint Alauddin W/O Md. Javed Khan Resident Of Village Chandpali, Police Station Zeeradei, District Siwan. …. …. Opposite Party/s

    Appearance :
    For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana

    For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kumar Birendra Narayan(App)

    CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA
    ORAL ORDER

    3 11-01-2017

    This application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing order dated 05.11.2011 passed in Complaint Case No.1428 of 2011correspondign to Trial No.3196 of 2013 by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, who took cognizance against these petitioners under Section 498A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and issued process against the petitioners.

    The prosecution story in short is that the marriage of Opposite Party No.2 was solemnized with petitioner no.1 but after the marriage, the members of in-laws were not happy so they started torturing her for fulfillment of their demand of dowry and assaulted her on 02.04.2011 but the complaint case was filed on 02.07.2011.

    After an enquiry, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siwan passed an order under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuing processes against the petitioners, which has been challenged before this Court in the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

    It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there is a general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons including the petitioners and nothing has been specifically alleged against any of the accused persons including the petitioners. It has also been submitted that earlier before filing of the present case, the petitioner No.1 has given Talak on 13.06.2011 to Opposite Party No.2, however, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siwan without applying his judicial mind passed the order issuing process against the accused persons including the petitioners in the most mechanical way.

    Heard learned A.P.P. as well as learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties.
    It has been submitted on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 that there are allegation against all the accused persons in the complaint petition so also appears from the materials collected during the course of the enquiry and only thereafter, the case is made out under Section 498 A & 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The processes were issued against the accused persons, vide impugned order, however, the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 could not place any statement in the complaint petition or anything to show that any specific overt act has been alleged against the petitioners.

    Having heard both sides and from perusal of the record, it appears that though there are allegations against the petitioners but they are general in nature and no specific overt act has been alleged against the petitioners . In this case, the petitioner no.1 is husband, petitioner no.2 is brother-in-law (‘Bhaisur’), petitioner nos. 3 to 5 are ‘Nanad’, petitioner no.6 is mother-in-law, petitioner no.7 is father-in-law and petitioner no.8 is ‘Dewar’.

    From perusal of the whole complaint petition, it appears that there is no specific allegation against the accused persons however, a matrimonial dispute between the Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 as he had said to have ‘Talak’. In such situation, it will not be proper to send all the accused persons for trial on the basis of general and omnibus allegation.

    No doubt the petitioner no.1 is husband but so far as other persons are concerned, they are family members and as to what manner they are involved in the case has not been attributed.

    In view of the facts as stated above so far application of petitioner nos. 2 to 8 for quashing the order issuing processes is concerned, it is fit to be quashed.

    As such, this application is allowed, order issuing processes vide impugned order with respect to petitioner nos.2 to 8 is quashed and their case is remitted back to the learned court below, for passing the detail order afresh.

    So far application of petitioner no.1 is concerned, he is husband, as such, his application for quashing the order dated 05.11.2011 is dismissed.

    (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/-

    18 lakhs for settling 498a !! Recent short lived marriage ! No children 😪🤘

    18 lakhs for settling 498a !! Recent short lived marriage ! No children 😪

    Supreme Court – Daily Orders

    Sneha Parikh vs Manit Kumar on 16 January, 2018

    TP(C) 373/2017

    1

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

    Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 373/2017

    SNEHA PARIKH Petitioner

    VERSUS

    MANIT KUMAR Respondent

    O R D E R

    This Court vide order dated 9.11.2017 had directed the parties to appear before the Supreme Court Mediation Centre on 16.11.2017. Thereafter, they appeared and the mediation proceedings continued. The learned Mediator has recorded the settlement, which has been arrived at between the parties. The settlement agreement reads as follows:-

    “SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

    This Settlement Agreement is entered into between petitioner-wife Sneha Parikh, w/o Mr. Manit Kumar D/o Shri Mayur Parikh, R/o Flat No. 8-103, Swapna Puri, CHS, Jivala Pada, Thakur Village, Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101, Maharashtra and Mr. Manit Kumar S/o Shri Mahinder Kumar Kathuria, R/o D/874, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025. Signature Not Verified The marriage between the petitioner-wife and Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR Date: 2018.01.17 the respondent-husband was solemnized as per Hindu 19:02:55 IST Reason: rites and customs on 10.2.2015 at Delhi. Because of disputes temperamental differences both the parties started residing separately since October, 2015.

    The petitioner-Sneha Parikh lodge the TP(C) 373/2017 complaint against the respondent and his family members, where upon a case crime registration no. 386/2016 was registered at P.S. Samta Nagar, Mumbai under Sections 498A, 406, 506(2), 34 IPC.

    There is no issue out of this wedlock and the parties are living separately since October, 2015. The respondent-husband has filed a petition H.M.A. No. 1002 of 2016 under Section 13 of the H.M.A. The same is pending before the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Saket District Court, New Delhi and thereafter the petitioner-wife has filed the present Transfer Petition for the transfer of the above divorce petition filed by the respondent-husband.

    The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 9.11.2017 was pleased to refer the matter to the Supreme Court Mediation centre.

    Comprehensive mediation sessions were held with the parties separately and jointly in presence of their respective counsels on today i.e. on 16.11.2017.

    Both the parties hereto have arrived at an amicable mutual settlement on the following terms and conditions for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent and for quashing of the Crime Registration No. 386 of 2016 at P.S. Samta Nagar, Mumbai against the respondent and his other family members:

    1. That is is agreed between the parties that they shall jointly pray for dissolution of marriage and quashing of Crime Registration No. 386 of 2016 at P.S. Samta Nagar, Mumbai against the respondent and his other family members as well as disposing of all the matter between the parties before the Hon’ble Supreme Court at the time of next date of hearing invoking the inherent power under Article 142 of the Constitution for grant of divorce by mutual consent as both the parties are staying separately for the last more than 2 years and there is no hope for reunion/reconciliation.
    2. The respondent-husband has agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lacs Only) to the petitioner-wife towards full and final settlement of all her claims towards alimony, maintenance (past, present and future), Stridhan, belongings and any other claim TP(C) 373/2017 whatsoever. That out of this an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Only) has already been paid/deposited by the respondent in the Court of Hon’ble Session Judge Dhindoshi District Court, Mumbai in Crime Registration No. 386 of 2016 while hearing on the anticipatory bail application No. 1077 of 2016 titled as Manit Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and the petitioner has already received/withdrawn the said amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Only). Hence, the respondent has to pay only the balance amount of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Only) to the petitioner. It is agreed that the said amount shall be paid in the following manner:-(a) That out of the aforesaid amount Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lacs Only) will be paid by demand draft/bankers cheque in the name of Sneha Mayur Parikh at the time of recording the statement of the parties in the divorce petition under Section 13(B)(2) of H.M.A. (b) That balance/final amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lacs only) will be paid by demand draft/bankers cheque in the name of Sneha Mayur Parikh at the time of quashing of FIR/Crime Registration No. 386 of 2016 at P.S. Samta Nagar, Mumbai against the respondent and his other family members.

    3. That it is agreed between the parties that the partnership firm with the name and style of M/s. Visual Echoes in which both the petitioner and respondent (petitioner and respondent 10% share of petitioner and 90% share of respondent) are partners is non functional since approximately last 2 years. However, the parties have agreed to sign a dissolution deed on or before next date of hearing before this Hon’ble Court. In the event if any liability arises with regard to the aforesaid partnership firm the respondent has agreed to be liable for the same and the petitioner will not be accountable for any such liability.

    4. That the parties have further agreed in case where the application, under Article 142 of Constitution of India mentioned above is not accepted by this Hon’ble Court, the parties shall file a joint petition for divorce within two weeks under Section 13(B)(i) and (B)(ii) for grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent before the TP(C) 373/2017 competent Court at Saket, Delhi, as the marriage of the parties was solemnized at Delhi. That the respondent and his other family members will file the quashing petition before the Hon’ble High Court at Mumbai for quashing of Crime Registration No. 386 of 2016 at P.S. Samta Nagar, Mumbai against the respondent and his other family members within 4 weeks from the date of divorce. The petitioner has agreed to cooperate in quashing of the aforesaid FIR/Crime Registration No. 386 of 2016.

    5. That in case the Hon’ble Supreme Court is pleased to allow the application filed under Article 142 of Constitution of India and grant divorce and quash the FIR, then the respondent-husband shall pay the entire balance amount of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Only) to the petitioner-wife before this Hon’ble Court during the course of hearing.

    6. That in case there is any other case/complaint pending before any Court/Authority filed by any of the parties involved in any of the case filed against each other or their family members apart from cases detailed in the present agreement with regard to this matrimonial dispute, shall be withdrawn by the respective parties within one month from the signing of this agreement.

    7. That the petitioner and the respondent have agreed that none of them would initiate any other legal action or complaint against each other or against the family members of each other with regard to this matrimonial alliance.

    8. Subject to the aforesaid terms, the parties have resolved all the dispute amicably in relation to the marriage and have been left with no claims against each other and/or their respective family members.

    9. By signing this Agreement the parties hereto solemnly state and affirm that they have no further claims or demands against each other and all the disputes and differences have been amicably settled by the parties hereto through the process of mediation.

    10. The parties undertake to abide by the terms and conditions set out in the above mentioned Agreement, which have been arrived without any coercion, duress or collusion and undertake not to TP(C) 373/2017 raise any dispute whatsoever henceforth.

    11. The contents of this settlement-agreement have been explained to all the parties through their respective counsels and the parties have understood the terms of the settlement agreement.” We have perused the settlement agreement. In the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties submitted that this Court may grant divorce and quash the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the petitioner-wife, forming the subject matter of Crime Registration/FIR No. 386 of 2016 registered at Police Station Samta Nagar, Mumbai, for offences punishable under Section 498A, 406 and 506(2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

    We have also been apprised that the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lacs only) has been paid to the petitioner-wife today.

    In view of the aforesaid, we think it appropriate to direct that the marriage between the parties stands dissolved on consent. It is ordered accordingly.

    As all other disputes have been put to rest, we think it appropriate to quash the Crime Registration/FIR No. 386 of 2016 registered at Police Station Samta Nagar, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 406 and 506(2) read with Section 34 of the IPC. We appreciate the efforts made by the learned Mediator to convince the parties and make them arrive at the settlement. TP(C) 373/2017 The transfer petition is accordingly disposed of.

    Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

    ………………CJI.

    [Dipak Misra] ………………..J.

    [A.M. Khanwilkar] ………………..J.

    [Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud] New Delhi;

    January 16, 2018.

    TP(C) 373/2017

    ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVI-A

    S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

    Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 373/2017

    SNEHA PARIKH Petitioner VERSUS MANIT KUMAR Respondent (FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 1/2017 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 2/2017 MEDIATION REPORT RECEIVED and IA No.134105/2017-JOINT APPLICATION FOR DIVORCE)

    Date : 16-01-2018

    This matter was called on for hearing today.

    CORAM :

    HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

    HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

    HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD

    For Petitioner Ms. Priya Hingo Rani, Adv.

    Mr. Rajiv Narayan, Adv.

    Mr. Azim H. Laskar, Adv.

    Mr. Dhiraj Singh Panwar, Adv.

    Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AOR For Respondent Mr. Tushar Bakshi, AOR

    UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

    O R D E R

    The transfer petition is disposed of in terms of the signed order.

    Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

    (Deepak Guglani) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Assistant Registrar (Signed order is placed on the file)