9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Punjabi Bagh against her husband, Shashank, the present petitioner and other co- accused persons with allegations of cruelty for demand for dowry. 3. Petitioner was arrested in the said case. He was produced before the learned MM on 4.5.2007 where petitioner made a proposal for settlement and agreed to pay to the complainant an amount of ₹ 2.5 crores towards settlement of her claims regarding maintenance, alimony etc. with her husband Shashank Kapur and also that parties would seek mutual divorce by adopting proper forum for the same. Consequently petitioner handed over cheques No. 203022 dated 8.5.2007 for a sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- drawn on Bank of India, 203021 dated 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IR No. 259/2007 after respondent and her husband got divorced, however, they had not yet divorced each other and this made the settlement ineffective. Hence, since the settlement did not materialize and ingredients of Section 138 of NI Act are not made out, the impugned complaint and summoning order deserve to be quashed. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent states that petitioner had liability towards the respondent, since it was agreed in the settlement before the trial court that petitioner would pay the respondent a sum of ₹ 2.5 crores and only on this ground the petitioner was granted bail by the trial court on 4.5.2007. Since, petitioner had liability to pay the amount under the settlement therefore, he has been rightl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ability. 10. As per the mutual settlement between the parties, petitioner had issued three post-dated cheques of different amounts totalling to ₹ 2.5 crores. As per the settlement, the impugned cheque for ₹ 1.25 crores was to be got encashed by the respondent at the time of quashing of the FIR. 11. Admittedly, no petition for seeking quashing of the FIR has been filed by the respondent or by Shashank Kapur. It is also not disputed that this compromise was arrived at and the cheque was issued by the petitioner when he was in custody and was produced before the Court and had sought his release on bail. Court had granted bail in view of the compromise having been arrived at between the petitioner and the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y enforced by the complainant/respondent against the petitioner. Legally she is entitled to enforce her claims for istridhan, dowry articles and maintenance against Shashank Kapur, her husband, however, respondent is not entitled to enforce such rights against the petitioner and the petitioner under no circumstance was legally liable to pay any amount for settlement of the marital dispute between his son and the respondent. 14. As stated above, respondent deposited this cheque for encashment in her account before approaching the Court for quashing of the FIR and therefore, the petitioner was within his rights to stop the payment of the cheque as respondent/complainant had failed to fulfill her part of the obligation in terms of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
