MOHD. SHAMIM AND ORS. versus SMT. NAHID BEGUM AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 152 · Decided: 07-01-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MOHD. SHAMIM AND ORS. 
v. 
... . 
SMT. NAHID BEGUM AND ANR. 
• 
JANUARY 7, 2005 
B 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 482-Penal Code, 1860-
Sections 406, 498A and 34-Quashing of criminal proceeding-For abusing 
c process of court-Criminal complaint by Respondent-wife against Appellants 
(husband and in-laws)-Appellants filed application for grant of anticipatory 
bail-Settlement at the instance of Addi. Sessions Judge hearing the matter-
Monetary relief to be given to Respondent-wife in fall and final settlement of 
stridhan, dowry mehar, present and future maintenance etc.-Substantial 
amount paid-Rest was to be paid at the time of wife making statement and 
D no-objection for quashing the FIR against Appellants-But when Appellants 
.. 
filed application before High Court for quashing of FIR, Respondent-wife 
filed objections-High Court declined to interfere on grounds that the wife did 
not wish to compromise and wanted to continue with her complaint-Held; 
... 
On facts, denial of execution of the settlement was an ajierthought on the part 
E 
of Respondent-wife-Jn view of her conduct in entering into the settlement, 
continuance of criminal proceeding pending against Appellants would be an 
abuse of the process of Court-Hence the FIR quashed-Constitution of India, 
1950-Artic/e 142. 
Appellant No. I and Respondent No. I were married as per rites 
F governing marriage under the Muslim Personal Law. Appellant No.2 is 
the mother of Appellant No. I and Appellant Nos. 3 to 5 are his sisters. 
Appellant No. I allegedly divorced Respondent No.I and intimation 
thereabout was communicated to her through a legal notice. Respondent 
No.I lodged First Information Report in the Women Cell against the 
Appellants, pursuant to which the Appellants filed an application for grant 
G of anticipatory bail. During course of hearing of the said application, a 
settlement was arrived at, at the instance of the Additional Sessions Judge 
hearing the said matter, between the parties. The Judge by reason of an 
order recorded that it was settled by the parties that a sum of Rs. 2,75,000 
would be paid by the Appellants-applicants to the complainant-Respondent 
H 
152 
MOHD. SHAM IM v. NAHID BEGUM 
153 
No.I in full and final settlement of stridhan, dowry, mehar present past A 
' -l 
and future maintenance etc., that out of that Rs. 2,25,000 would be paid 
on the next date of hearing by way of pay order in the name of the 
complainant and Rs. 50,000 would be paid at the time of complainant 
making statement and no objection for quashing tbe FIR; till then the 
applicants be not arrested. A written agreement to this effect was filed B 
before the court of the Additional Sessions Judge. In view of the 
aforementioned settlement, the Additional Sessions Judge allowed the 
application for anticipatory bail, recording that a pay order of 2.25 lakhs 
had been given by the Appellants to the complainant-Respondent No. 1 
and that the Appellants undertake to further pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 as 
per the agreement. In furtherance of the said settlement, the Appellants C 
filed application before the High Court for quashing the said FIR 
purported to be under Section 482, CrPC. Respondent No.1, in her reply 
filed before the High Court, denied any compromise; and contended that 
she was paid only Rs.2,25,000; and she was forced to sign some papers. 
In view of the stand taken by the Respondent No.I, Single Judge of the 
High Court refused to interfere in the matter on grounds that Respondent 
No.I did not wish to compromise the matter and wanted to continue with 
her complaint. Hence this present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: I. In view of the fact that the settlement was arrived at the E 
intervention of a judicial officer of the rank of the Additional Sessions 
Judge, the contention of the Respondent No. I to the effect that she was 
not aware of the contents thereof and the said agreement as also the 
affidavit which were got signed by her by misrepresentation of facts must 
be rejected. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the denial of F 
execution of the said deed of settlement is an afterthought on the part ~f 
Respondent No.I. (158-D-Ej 
< 
2. Ex facie the settlement between the parties appears to be genuine. 
If the contention of the First Respondent is to be accepted, she would not 
have accepted the sum of Rs. 2,25,000 and in any event, she could have G 
filed a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.