TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esh Kapoor pending before any Court and if any such case is brought to the notice of Rakesh Kapoor, the same shall be withdrawn by making an appropriate application before the concerned court and that on the same set of allegations for which the above noted FIR was registered and a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, Delhi and the proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed. - CRL.M.C. 790/2012 and Crl. M.A. No. 2765/2012 (Stay) - - - Date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5. That the accused S.N. Bansal solemnly undertake to this Hon ble Court that the said post-dated cheque of ₹ 7 lakhs shall be honoured on its due date. 6. That the Complainant has no objection 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Kapoor pending before any court and if any such case is brought to the notice of Rakesh Kapoor, the same shall be withdrawn by making an appropriate application before the concerned Court. 8.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 befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent No.2 in Court today. 7. Rakesh Kapoor, who is present in Court and is identified by the Investigating Officer, does not deny that a settlement was arrived at between the parties and that he had signed the joint memo of 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 va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be genuine. The Supreme Court further held that the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the appellant therein would be an abuse of the process of the Court and exercising its plenary jurisdiction under Article 142 of 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 diffe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the process of mediation, which has even been acted upon partially, parties cannot be permitted to back track from the same as it will negate the aims and objectives of whole process of mediation. Withdrawal of consent by respondent no. 2 on some innocuous 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 Prohibit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
