Home > 498A Judgements > Greedy Wife: Needs more even after Lok Adalat settlement : Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra

Greedy Wife: Needs more even after Lok Adalat settlement : Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra

Bench: S N Dhingra

Dr. Aakash Deep Makkar And Ors. vs Dr. Vanish And Anr. on 21/2/2007


Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No. 1159 of 2004 under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC. The FIR was result of matrimonial discord between the respondent No. 1 and petitioner No. 1. After the registration of the FIR, negotiations took place between parties and a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between parties whereby it was agreed that the parties shall obtain a divorce by mutual consent through Lok Adalat going to be held on 16th July, 2006 at Patiala House Courts and parties also specifically agreed for moving a petition for quashing of FIR on account of the settlement. It was specifically mentioned that if the agreement arrived at between the parties was not utilized for the purpose of obtaining divorce on 16.7.2006, the same shall loose its operative validity on the evening of 16th July, 2006 and shall be null and void. It was stated that the case was being moved before the Lok Adalat for speedy and prompt disposal of divorce by mutual consent and also for quashing of FIR. In respect of Istridhan and other items a clause was specifically inserted in the agreement as Clause No. 4 which reads as under:

4(a) That all the parties will give full respect to the five orders passed by Hon’ble Additional District Judges on different dates and that there is no dispute with regards to maintenance or any money or belonging. That the parties have agreed that they would shelve/forego their respective claims and Party No. 5 will have no right to claim return items/Istridhan. She will have no right to claim any maintenance of present, past and future. She will have no right to claim any permanent alimony. The claims be deemed to have been settled finally without taking or giving anything whatsoever either in cash or in kind maintaining status quo as it existed on the evening of 22.3.2005. No one will have any right/claim on the property of the other.

4(b) That all claims of balance Istridhan, dowry, shall stand annulled and party No. 5 shall have no claim of any kind whatsoever on Party No. 1 and Party No. 2 to 4 and vice versa.

2. It may be mentioned that at the time of grant of anticipatory bail, a condition was put on petitioners of payment of Rs. 2 lacs to the respondent No. 1 and release of ornaments from bank locker No. 16, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kamla Nagar and handing over of the dowry articles from Quarter No. 101, Resident Doctors Hostel, Hindu Rao Hospital.

3. The petitions for quashing of FIR and the divorce were simultaneously made by the parties on the same day i.e. 16th July, 2006. The divorce was granted to the parties by Lok Adalat on 16th July, 2006 itself. However, when the petition for quashing came up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1/complainant stated that some of the dowry articles/lstridhan items were yet to be given by the petitioners though this fact was not mentioned in the written settlement and time was sought to file reply. In the reply filed by the respondents to this petition, it is stated that the consent of the respondent No. 2 was hurriedly obtained by the Lok Adalat when Lok Adalat was on the verge of rising and the petitioners could not plead this fact before the Lok Adalat.

4. I have gone through the agreement entered into between the parties which is duly signed by the parties. A perusal of agreement would show that the agreement was made after due deliberations. The said agreement runs into seven pages and each and every aspect of the compromise was recorded in the agreement. The respondent No. 1 had executed the affidavit which was duly signed and attested by the Oath Commissioner on 16th July, 2006, giving her consent for quashing of the FIR and acknowledging that the contents of the petition for quashing of FIR as correct to her knowledge. She had also signed the petition before the Lok Adalat for mutual consent. The question of consent having been hurriedly obtained, therefore, does notarise. It only seems that after the divorce was granted by the Lok Adalat on the basis of a mutual consent of parties and on the basis of agreement, since the petition for quashing of FIR could not be taken on the same day as it was not within the power of Lok Adalat to quash the proceedings, the respondent No. 1 decided to take advantage of this and harass the petitioners in order to extract some more money, using her position as a tool.

5. Looking into the agreement entered into between the parties and the consent given by the respondent No. 1 at the time of obtaining divorce and at the time of filing this petition, her plea that something more was to be given, is absolutely false and I find no force in it. The continuation of FIR and the proceedings shall amount to abuse of criminal justice system at the hands of respondent/complainant. The contrary stand taken by the respondent after obtaining divorce rather amounts to perjury. There is no force in her contentions. She cannot be allowed to make mockery of the system.

6. In view of my foregoing discussion, the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed and the FIR No. 1159 of 2004 under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC is hereby quashed.

Categories: 498A Judgements
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

%d bloggers like this: