9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erms of the settlement arrived at between the parties i.e. clause 7 notes that there was no criminal or civil cases instituted by Rakesh Kapoor pending before any Court and if any such case is brought to the notice of Rakesh Kapoor, the same shall be withdrawn by making an appropriate application before the concerned court and that on the same set of allegations for which the above noted FIR was registered and a complaint case under Section 138 NI Act is filed, the charge sheet has been filed, the same is liable to be quashed in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the respondent No.2 having taken the benefit of the settlement. Consequently, FIR No. 1111/1998 under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC registered at PS Kalkaji, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was placed on record before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. Contents of joint memo of compromise filed on 31st January, 2005 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court are as under: "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITON (CRL.) NO.331 OF 2005 IN THE MATTER OF: Rakesh Kapoor Petitioner/ Complainant Versus S.N. Bansal & Anr. Respondents/ Accused JOINT MEMO OF COMPROMISE BETWEEN THE COMPLAINANT RAKESH KAPOOR AND THE ACCUSED S.N. BANSAL PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT BY ORDER DATED 28.1.2005. 1. That the complainant Rakesh Kapoor and the accused S.N. Bansal have arrived at a settlement whereby the accused S.N. Bansal has paid certain amount and also a post-dated cheque to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion in receiving the balance amount by the said post dated cheque of ₹ 7 lakhs, in view of the undertaking of the accused to this Hon'ble Court. 7. That there are no criminal or civil cases instituted by Rakesh Kapoor pending before any court and if any such case is brought to the notice of Rakesh Kapoor, the same shall be withdrawn by making an appropriate application before the concerned Court. 8. That in view of the amicable settlement between Rakesh Kapoor and S.N. Bansal, both parties are making a joint prayer before this Hon'ble Court to permit them to compound the offence of which S.N. Bansal has been convicted by judgment dated 25.10.2002 and confirmed by this Hon'ble Court by the dismissal of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compromise between the parties as noted above before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further states that at that time the settlement so arrived at between the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner, was by duress on the respondent No.2. This Court asked Rakesh Kapoor as to under whose duress he entered into the settlement to which he replied that it was neither of the Court nor of the petitioner but because he had taken various loans, the creditors were troubling him and he was in dire need of money for which he sold his various properties as well, thus faced with these circumstances, he was compelled to settle the matter with the petitioners. 8. Thus the respondent No.2 compelled by his circumstances settled the matter and not under duress eit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Constitution of India, it quashed the FIR in question. 10. This Court in the decision reported as 2007 SCC OnLine Del 518:(2007) 142 DLT 141 Jaibir v. State observed that once the parties have settled their disputes and have arrived a settlement, the same should be given effect in entirety and should be treated as a solemn settlement. The relevant extract of the report is as under: "9. Reverting to the case at hand, it is clear from the settlement that the parties had agreed to bury all their differences. The complainant was also facing criminal proceedings under Sections 498A/406/34, IPC and also under Section 125, Cr.P.C. He has been the beneficiary of the settlement inasmuch as the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. are withdra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocuous ground is impermissible. In Ruchi Aggarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal 2005 (1) ALT 42 (SC), civil and criminal litigations were pending between the husband and wife. Matter was compromised before the Family Court pursuant whereof, a decree of divorce by mutual consent was granted. Wife withdrew application filed by her under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in terms of the settlement, however, she avoided to withdraw the complaint under Sections 498-A/328/506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Accordingly, husband filed a petition before the High Court of Uttaranchal for quashing of the said complaint. In the said petition, High Court quashed the charge-sheet and the summoning order for want of territorial jurisdiction and tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
