CRL.M.C./6639/2018 of MS.SHIWALI SUMAN Vs THE STATE & ANR. on 31 December 2018

$~8

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 6639/2018, Crl.M.A. 50768/2018 & Crl.M.A.50769/2018

MS.SHIWALI SUMAN

..... Petitioner

Through:Mr. Saurabh Chauhan & Mr. Varun Jain,Advocates with petr. in personAdvocates with petr. in person

versus

THE STATE & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:Mr. Kamal Kumar Ghei, APP for State withSI Rawat Singh, PS Tilak NagarMr. Jagdev Singh, Advocate for R-2 with R-2 in personSI Rawat Singh, PS Tilak NagarMr. Jagdev Singh, Advocate for R-2 with R-2 in person

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R%31.12.2018Crl.M.A.50769/2018

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CRL.M.C. 6639/2018, Crl.M.A. 50768/2018 (for stay)

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of the orderdated 24.11.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court in Crl. Revision No. 03/2018(358/18) in FIR 130/2018, Police Station Tilak Nagar under Section 498A/406/34IPC and the consequential order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the said court.

Respondent No. 2 – Tarun Kumar is an NRI, who is residing and employedin Canada. He filed an application before the court of the learned MetropolitanMagistrate seeking permission to travel abroad. The said application was opposedby the petitioner on the ground that in case the permission is granted to theapplicant, he would not return and this could cause grave injustice to thecomplainant. The learned metropolitan Magistrate, after hearing the submissions, declined to grant the permission to respondent No. 2. The said order was assailedby filing a Revision Petition No. 03/2018 before the court of Additional SessionsJudge (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The said Revision Petition was heard andallowed vide order dated 24[th]November, 2018 wherein, inter alia, it was observedas under:

“13.I find that it is not the ground of rejecting such permissionthat he would not be available for the purpose of investigation whenboth the parties have already agreed upon to seek quashing of theFIR by moving quashing petition before the Hon’ble High Court asper the agreement. However, certain conditions can be imposed onthe accused/petitioner for the purpose of making himself availablefor the investigation as and when required and IO shall provide theschedule, if any, such need of investigation has arisen so that he canschedule his visits accordingly.

14. Thus, the revision petition stands allowed subject to theconditions that the petitioner shall file a bank guarantee/indemnitybond for the balance amount to be paid as per agreement with anundertaking that he shall furnish his contact details and his addressof stay/employment in Canada and change that of to the IO, as wellas to the court, thereby setting aside the order dated 02.11.2018passed in case FIR No. 130/2018 PS Tilak Nagar u/s 498A/406/34IPC. However, the bail conditions shall remain intact and shall notstand modified in the wake of such orders.”

The petitioner has filed the present petition assailing the aforesaid orderprimarily on the apprehension that in case respondent No. 2 is permitted to travelabroad, she would be prejudiced inasmuch as the settlement arrived at between theparties on 27[th]September, 2018, would not fructify and the petitioner would be leftwith no other option but to engage in litigation in order to secure her rights.

During the course of arguments, it has been pointed out that the parties have,in fact, settled the disputes in terms forming part of settlement deed dated 27[th]September, 2018, which, inter alia, stipulates that Tarun Kumar (respondent No. 2)

shall pay an amount of Rs. 22 Lacs to Ms. Shiwali Suman (petitioner) towards thefull and final settlement of all her claims including streedhan, articles, jewelleryetc.The manner of the dispensation of the aforesaid amount has also beenprovided for in the compromise deed referred above.

In terms of the aforesaid settlement, admittedly, petitioner has received anamount of Rs. 9,30,000/- and a balance amount of Rs. 12,70,000/- is still remainingto be paid. It is also admitted between the parties that the respondent No. 2 hascomplied with the aforesaid terms and has paid the amounts stipulated therein onthe dates of events provided for.

In order to safeguard the interests of the petitioner and to show his bona fide,counsel for respondent No. 2 undertakes to deposit the balance amount of Rs.12,70,000/- before the Registrar General of this Court within two weeks fromtoday. The said amount shall be kept in fixed deposit for a period of six weeks andthe amount shall be disbursed to the petitioner, in the terms of the compromise.

As far as filing of the petition under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu MarriageAct, 1956 is concerned, it is pointed out by the counsel for respondent No. 2 thatthe Divorce Petition would be filed, as agreed between the parties, in the month ofFebruary, 2019 and respondent No. 2 undertakes to comply with the terms of thecompromise and file the said petition without any delay. In case, for any reasonwhatsoever, respondent No. 2 is not present in India, he would ensure duecompliance of the compromise terms. If required, he would make sure that thenecessary power of attorney is issued to a person, who is able to file the DivorcePetition. Respondent No. 2 shall take all other steps as are necessary to ensure thatthe petition for divorce is filed and proceeded further in accordance with law evenif he is not present in the country. This direction is not to be construed to meanthat the Petitioner has been exempted from being present in India. It is only toensure that the compromise terms are followed in true letter and spirit.

It is further made clear that in the event respondent No. 2 does not adhere tothe timeline stipulated in the compromise deed, the petitioner would be at liberty toapproach this Court to seek forfeiture/release of the amount of Rs. 12,70,000/-unconditionally.

Likewise, in case the petitioner wriggles out of the terms of the settlement,respondent No. 2 would also have the liberty to approach this Court for seekingappropriate directions in respect of the amount deposited.

The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Crl.M.A. No.50768/2018 is disposed of.

DECEMBER 31, 2018rd

SANJEEV NARULA, J(Vacation Judge)