Marriage is a great institution. Some times….just sometimes it ends with a 2.5 crore payment !!!

After multiple cases on the husband, we see that a “settlement” is arrived at & husband “agrees” to pay 2.5 Crores to the wife !!

2.5 crores !! Oh My Gawd !!

Did I mention that parties agree to a “mutual consent” divorce, wife agrees to quash 498a 406 etc, withdraw her Sec 125 CrPC petition and also withdraw the DV case (meaning all these swords were hanging on that guy’s head for all along !!)

again …2.5 crores !! Oh My Gawd !!


CRL.M.C. 1428/2016

Date of Decision : May 18th, 2016

Through: Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Adv.


Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, APP
Mr. Ajay Kumar Arora, Adv. for R-2.



  1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Sanjay Singhal for quashing of FIR No.186/2009 dated 23.12.2009, under Sections 406/420/468/471/34 IPC registered at Police Station Karol Bagh on the basis of the settlement agreement arrived at Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi between the petitioner and respondent no.2, namely, Ms. Renu Singhal on 16.05.2015. ; ;
  2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent no.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant in the FIR in question by her counsel.
  3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the FIR in question was lodged by the complainant on the allegation that somebody forged the letter of resignation dated 24.10.2007 of the complainant and thus, the complainant lodged the FIR in question against M/s SFS Infinite Ltd. and all its Directors, namely, Mr. Shiam Sunder Singhal, Mr. Sanjay Singhal, Mr. Atul Mittal, Mr. Munish Kakara and Mr. Rajender Kumar Goel. The complainant alleged that one motive of her fraudulent removal could be the elevation of Mr. Sanjay Singhal to the post of M.D. The complainant was thrown out of her matrimonial house on 29.11.2007 by her husband-petitioner, thus FIR No. 410/2008 dated 01.12.2008 was lodged against him at Mukherjee Nagar. It is further alleged that 2,00,900 shares were transferred by the company on the basis of complainant’s forged signature. Later on, parties arrived at an amicable settlement with each other.
  4. Respondent No.2 present in the Court submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the settlement agreement, the petitioner and respondent no.2 shall dissolve their marriage be decree of divorce by mutual consent. It is also agreed that the petitioner shall pay Rs. 2.5 crore to the respondent no.2 towards all her legal entitlements (past, present and future) including permanent alimony. The payment of the said amount shall be as enunciated in the settlement agreement. It is also agreed that the first motion will take place within 2 weeks from the date of the signing of the said agreement. It is further agreed that the concerned party shall get the FIR in question quashed. It is also agreed that the respondent no.2 shall surrender all her rights in all the moveable and immoveable properties where she has a share with the petitioner or his family members and the respondent no.2 shall sign all the relevant documents relating to the same in favour of the petitioner or any other person authorized by the petitioner within 16th to 31st July, 2015. It is further agreed that the respondent no.2 shall withdraw her petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. at the time of recording the statement of first motion and shall also withdraw her DV Act case on 03.06.2015. It is further agreed that after the passing of the decree of divorce, both the parties shall file for quashing of the FIR No. 218/2010 under Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and FIR No. 410/2008 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi before this Court within two weeks. Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 12.01.2016 supporting this petition. In the affidavit, she has stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioner survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of the respondent no.2 has been recorded in this regard in which she stated that she has entered into a compromise with the petitioner and has settled all the disputes with him. She further stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
  5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:-
    • “61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.”
  6. 6. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are as under:-
    • “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.
  7. The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The respondent no.2 agreed to the quashing of the FIR in question and has stated that the matter has been settled out of her own free will. As the matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be an extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal proceedings between the parties are carried on. So, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
  8. The incorporation of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is meant to deal with the situation in the absence of express provision of law to secure the ends of justice such as, where the process is abused or misused; where the ends of justice cannot be secured; where the process of law is used for unjust or unlawful object; to avoid the causing of harassment to any person by using the provision of Cr.P.C. or to avoid the delay of the legal process in the delivery of justice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent the express provisions of law.
  9. It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case of Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANU/SC/0808/2009 has observed that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.
  10. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not affect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, pursuing prosecution would be waste of time and energy. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (4) SCC 675 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon’ble Apex Court justified the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non- compoundable. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that notwithstanding the fact that the offences under Sections 468/471 IPC are non-compoundable offences, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR under these sections, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.
  11. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of statement made by the respondent no.2, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.
  12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.186/2009 dated 23.12.2009, under Sections 406/420/468/471/34 IPC registered at Police Station Karol Bagh and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioner. ; ;
  13. This petition is accordingly disposed of.




MAY 18, 2016


This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s