Holding

The Supreme Court held that, having entered into a genuine settlement under the supervision of a judicial officer, the continuance of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the court and the FIR was quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC.

Summary

The husband (Mohd. Shamim) and his relatives were accused by his wife, Nahid Begum, of offences under Sections 406, 498A and 34 IPC. During the hearing of an anticipatory bail application, an Additional Sessions Judge facilitated a settlement whereby the appellants paid Rs. 2.25 lakh and agreed to pay a further Rs. 50,000 on the wife’s statement, with a full and final discharge of dowry, stridhan and maintenance claims. The appellants then sought quashing of the FIR under Section 482 CrPC, but the wife objected, claiming the settlement was not honoured and that she was forced to sign. The Delhi High Court refused to quash the FIR, holding that the wife did not wish to compromise. The Supreme Court held that the settlement, made under a judicial officer, was genuine, the wife’s later denial was an after‑thought, and continuing the criminal proceeding would constitute an abuse of the court’s process. Accordingly, the Court exercised its power under Article 142 to set aside the High Court order and quash the FIR, noting the decision is not a precedent.

Issues considered

Whether a settlement arrived at under the supervision of an Additional Sessions Judge can bar the continuation of criminal proceedings under Sections 406, 498A and 34 IPC.
Whether the FIR can be quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC in view of the settlement.
Whether the continuance of the criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
Whether the compoundability of Section 406 affects the quashal of the FIR.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
Constitution of Indias. 142
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 34, s. 406, s. 498A

Subjects

criminal procedurequash of FIRabuse of processsettlementanticipatory baildowryIPC 498ASection 482 CrPCSupreme Court

Judgment

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
process of court-Criminal complaint by Respondent-wife against Appellants
c (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

D
amount paid-Rest was to be paid at the time of wife making statement and
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
of Respondent-wife-Jn view of her conduct in entering into the settlement,
E continuance of criminal proceeding pending against Appellants would be an
abuse of the process ofCourt-Hence the FIR quashed-Constitution of India,
1950-Artic/e 142.

Appellant No. I and Respondent No. I were married as per rites
governing marriage under the Muslim Personal Law. Appellant No.2 is
F
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 D
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

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 an appropriate application in that behalf before the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge. What was least expected of her was that she
would return the said sum of Rs. 2,25,000 to the Appellants. (158-FI

3. In view of the conduct of the First Respondent in entering into
the aforementioned settlement, the continuance of the criminal proceeding H
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] I S.C.R.

A pending against the Appellants, would be an abuse of the process of the
court. Respondent No.I, however, would be entitled to withdraw the sum >-,
of Rs. 50,000 which has been deposited in the court. In exercise of the
Court's jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, it is directed
that the impugned judgment of High Court be set aside. The First
B Information Report lodged against the Appellants is quashed. However,
this order should not be treated as a precedent. 1159-C-DI

Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal and Ors., 12004j 8 Supreme
525, relied on.

C CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 23
of 2005.

From the Judgment and Order dated 16.2.2004 of the Delhi High Court
in Crl. M.C. No. 4161 of 2002.

Zafar Sadique, Azeez Nazar Sabri and Balraj Dewan for the Appellants.
D
Amitava Poddar, Mrs. Anil Katiyar and Vijay K. Mehta for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

E S.B. SINHA, J., Leave granted.

The First Appellant and the First Respondent were married as per the
rites governing the marriage under the Muslim Personal Law on 02.04.1989.
The Appellant No.2 is the mother of the First Appellant and the Appellant
F Nos. 3 to 5 are the sisters. The First Appellant allegedly divorced the First
Respondent and intimation thereabout was communicated to her through a
legal notice dated 03.05.2002. On or about 30.10.2002, the Respondent No. I
lodged a First Information Report in Women Cell, Rajinder Nagar, New
Delhi, against the Appellants herein which was registered as FIR No. 224 of
2002, Police Station Hauz Qasi, Delhi, under Sections 406/498-A/34 IPC.
G The Appellants having come to learn about the lodging of the First Information
Report filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail. During the course
of hearing of the said application, a settlement was arrived at inter a/ia at the
instance of the learned judge hearing the said matter between the parties on
or about 11.11.2002 pursuant whereto or in furtherance whereof the parties
entered into a written agreement on 14.11.2002.
H
MOHD. SHAMIM v. NAHID BEGUM [SINHA. J.] 155
By reason of an order dated 11.11.2002, the learned Additional Sessions A
Judge, directed :

"During the course of arguments it is settled by the parties that
a sum of Rs. 2, 75,000 would be paid by the petitioner to the
complainant Nahid Begum in full and final settlement of istridhan,
dowry mehar present past and future maintenance etc. out of that Rs. B
2,25,000 would be paid on the next date of hearing by way of pay
order in the name of complainant and Rs. 50,000 would be paid at the
time of complainant on making statement and no objection for
quashing the FIR and the said pay order would be retained in court.
The parties make the draft agreement to this effect to facilitate to C
both the parties for quashing of FIR. Pay order would be brought on
the next date. Adjourned for bringing pay order on 14.11.2002. Till
then applicants be not arrested."

The said agreement was filed before the court of the Additional Sessions
Judge, Delhi. D
An affidavit in support of the said settlement was also affirmed by the
First Respondent herein, wherein inter a/ia it was stated :

"8. I undertake that I will cooperate in all respect and will
participate in the proceedings for quashing the F.l.R. against Mohd. E
Shamim Ishrat Bi, Shahnaz Begum, Farhat Begum and Shahzad
Begum, vide F.l.R. No. 224/2002, P.S. Hauz Qazi, u/s 498-A/406/34
l.P.C., as I have received the said amount through Bank Drafts and
I have no objection in any manner. I have entered into the compromise
with the said persons voluntarily with my own free will and consent.
F
9. That I have executed an Agreement with Mohd. Shamim which
is separately written with my consent and I have understood the
contents of the same, through my counsel and have been read over
to me in vernacular and I admit the contents of the said Agreement
in all respect and I accept the same as correct.
G
13. That the contents of the Agreement may be read as part and
parcel of this affidavit and the same are not being repeated here for
the sake of brevity."

In the said Agreement it was clearly stipulated that the First Respondent
received a sum of Rs. 2,25,000 from the First Appellant out of Rs. 2,75,000, H
/

156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] I S.C.R.

A the details whereof had been specified therein.
.'
It was further averred :

"2. That the Draft/pay order of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand
only) Rs. 25000 each (Rupees twenty five thousand only), ( l) bearing
B No.103621dated13.l 1.02, drawn on Canara Bank, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi (ii) bearing No.03 I030 dated 13.1 l .02 drawn on Bank of India,
Hamdard Dwakhana, Delhi-6 have been deposited in the court in
terms of the order dated I 1.11.2002.

3. That the above mentioned amount Rs. 2,75,000 (Rupees two
c lacs seventy five thousand only) covers the "MEHAR" amount entire
articles of dowry, lstridhan, past, present and future maintenance,
entire jewellery including the jewellery presented by the bridegoom/
second party and his relatives. After receipt of the said amount the
first party shall not claim anything from the secondary party. She will
not claim any further amount or articles, Istridhan, Charhawa i.e. the
D gifts from the sides of both the parties, maintenance u/s 124 Cr.PC
or Section 3 of the Mulsim Women Act, or under any other provisions
of law. The first party states that she has already filed a petition u/
.s 125 Cr. PC against the second party and the same is pending in the
court of Shri R.K. Sharma, M.M., Delhi and is fixed for 3.12.2002 of
E which no notice is served upon the second party. The first party now
undertakes to withdraw the said petition under section 125 Cr. PC
immediately.

5. That both the parties are at liberty to get married any person
of their choice in future. They will not interfere in the affairs of each
F other in future. They will also not litigate in future in respect of the
above said matters.

6. That the first party undertake to give no objection/statement in
order to quash the FIR in the present case and shall withdraw any
other complaint lodged with any other authority/court of law. She
G also undertakes that she will not file any other or further complaints
case(s) etc. against the second party."

In view of the aforementioned settlement, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge in his order dated 14.11.2002, recorded :

H "Present : Counsel for the parties with parties in person App for
MOHD. SHAMIM v. NAHID BEGUM [SINHA. J.) 157

I .. the State. A
A pay order of 2.25 lakhs has been given by the petitioners to the
complainant. The petitioners undertake to further pay a sum of Rs.
50,000 to the complainant when she would be called for the statement
for quashing of the FIR. In these facts and circumstances, the parties
would bound by their undertaking, the applications are allowed. It is B
ordered that in the event of arrest, applicants are released on
anticipatory bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. I 0,000
each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of I0/
SHO concerned who are required to be arrested in case FIR No.224/
02 PS Hauz Qazi. Parties are also placed on record copy of pay order, C
agreement and affidavit etc."

Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said settlement, the Appellants
herein filed an application before the Delhi High Court for quashing the said
First Information Report purported to be under Section 482 of the Cocie of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. The First Respondent, however, in stead and place D
of complying with her undertaking contained in the agreement as also in her
affidavit filed objections to the said application. In her reply filed before the
High Court, it was, inter alia, contended :

"6. That the contents of para no.6 of the petition under reply are
wrong and denied. It is wrong and denied that any compromise was E
accepted by the Respondent No. I. The court of Shri S.N. Gupta,
ADJ, Delhi accepted the bail application of the petitioners on the
condition that the petitioner no. I will pay a sum of Rs.2, 75,000 to the
respondent No. I in lieu of dowry cost. The respondent No. I has been
paid only Rs.2,25,000 and the petitioners have not paid Rs.50,000 till
date hence the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is also submitted F
).
that respondent No. I was forced to sign some papers by the petitioner
that Rs. 50,000 will be paid when the paper mentioned above will
come on record of the court. But till date amount of Rs.50,000 has
not been paid hence the petition is liable to be dismissed."

In view of the stand taken by the Respondent No. I herein, a learned G
Single Judge of the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment and
order dated 16.02.2004 refused to interfere in the matter stating :

"Respondent No. I/Complainant is present in person. She does not
wish to compromise the matter and wants to continue with her H
,

A
158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 1 S.C.R.

complaint which gave rise to FIR No.224/2002, under Sections 406/
498A/34, registered at Police Station Hauz Qazi.
.
'

In this view of the matter. I find no grounds to interfere.

Dismissed."
B Before us, there is no denial or dispute as regard the factum of entering
into the aforementioned settlement dated 14. I 1.2002. In the said deed of
compromise it has categorically been averred that the same had been entered
into on the intervention of S.N. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. It
has also been accepted that out of sum of Rs. 2,75,000, a sum of Rs. 2,25,000
C has been paid to the First Respondent herein and the balance amount of Rs.
50,000 would be paid at the time of complainant's making statement and no
objection for quashing the FIR, which was retained in the court as per the
direction of the court. It has further been averred that no dispute remained
between the parties regarding the payment of dower amount (Mehar), dowry
articles, including the alleged jewellary gift etc.
D
In view of the fact that the settlement was arrived at the intervention
of a judicial officer of the rank of the Additional Sessions Judge, we are of
the opinion, the contention of the First Respondent herein to the effect that
she was not aware of the contents thereof and the said agreement as also the
E affidavit which were got signed by her by misrepresentation of facts must be
rejected. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we have no doubt in our
mind that the denial of execution of the said deed of settlement is an
afterthought on the part of the Respondent No. I herein.

Ex facie the settlement between the parties appears to be genuine. If the
p contention of the First Respondent herein is to be accepted, she would not
have accepted the sum of Rs. 2,25,000 and in any event, she could have filed
an appropriate application in that behalf before the Court of S.N. Gupta,
Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. What was least expected of her was that
she would return the said sum of Rs.2,25,000 to the Appellants herein.

G Section 406 is a compoundable offence with the permission of the
court. It is true that Section 498-A IPC is not compoundable.

This Court in Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal and Ors., [2004]
8 Supreme 525, in almost a similar situation has quashed a criminal proceeding
against the husband, stating :
H
MOHD. SHAMIM v. NAHID BEGUM [SINHA, J.] 159
" ... Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant having received A
the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of the terms of the
compromise, we cannot now accept the argument of the learned
counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant
indicates that the criminal com plaint from which this appeal arises
was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents.
B
8. In view of the above said subsequent events and the conduct
of the appellant, it would be an abuse of the process of the court if
the criminal proceedings from which this appeal arises is allowed to
continue ... "

In view of the conduct of the First Respondent in entering into the C
aforementioned settlement, the continuance of the criminal proceeding pending
against the Appellants, in our opinion, in this case also; would be an abuse
of the process of the court. Th'e Respondent No. I, however, would be entitled
to withdraw the sum of Rs. 50,000 which has been deposited in the court.
We, therefore, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article I42 of the D
Constitution of India direct that the impugned judgment be set aside. The
First Information Report lodged against the Appellants is quashed. The Appeal
is allowed. However, this order should not be treated as a precedent.

B.B.B . . Appeal allowed.