Full Text
Translation output
Crl.Rev. P.69/2013 Page 1 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 69/2013
VIJENDER TANWAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate
CRL.REV.P. 69/2013
VIJENDER TANWAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate
VERSUS
MANJU TANWAR ..... Respondent
Through: None
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R 08.02.2013
Crl.M.A. No.1566/2013 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.A.No. 1568/2013 (condonation of delay)
The application is allowed and delay of 48 days in filing the petition is condoned for the reasons disclosed in paragraph No.2 of the application.
CRL. M.C. No.69/2013 & Crl.M.A.No.1567/2013 In the criminal appeal No.18/2012 arising out of CC No. 643/2001 pertaining to PS Najafgarh, Delhi under Section 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 the parties were referred to Mediation
Centre at Dwarka Courts, New Delhi where the matrimonial disputes between the parties were mutually settled and terms of settlement were reduced into writing in the settlement agreement of 18th July, 2012 2013:DHC:681 Crl.Rev. P.69/2013 Page 2
(Annexure-F), which is signed by petitioner as well as respondent herein.
On the basis of the aforesaid settlement agreement, order disposing of the appeal in terms of the above-said settlement agreement was passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts on 26th September, 2012, which is impugned herein.
After entering upon a settlement with respondent for a sum of
`6,61,000/- to be paid in installments, petitioner before the appellate court had tried to wriggle out of the aforesaid settlement agreement but was not allowed to do so. The pertinent findings returned in the impugned order are as under:-
“To my specific query as to why the respondent had signed the said Mediation Cell’s agreement dated 18.7.2012, it is stated by the ld. Counsel for respondent that the respondent had inadvertently not read the said agreement before signing the same and that at no point of time the respondent had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.6.61 lakh to the appellant towards settlement of all disputes, as mentioned in the said agreement. The respondent had admitted that he is 12th class passed and working as Warder in Tihar Jail. It is also admitted by the learned counsel for respondent that no application to the effect that the respondent had not agreed for making payment of Rs.6.61 lakh as mentioned in the
Mediation Cell’s order dated 18.7.2012 has been moved before the ld. Mediator till date. Admittedly, no pressure, threat, coercion or force was exerted on the respondent for signing the said agreement. Also the ld. Counsel for respondent had admitted that the respondent has not made any complaint against the ld. Mediator for allegedly getting the aforesaid agreement illegally signed from the respondent.
Crl.Rev. P.69/2013 Page 3 In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no material before the Court from which it can be inferred prima facie that the respondent had signed the said agreement without reading the same or that he had never consented voluntarily for the payment of Rs.6.61 lakh to the appellant. Also, it is clearly mentioned in the clause nos. 13 and 14 of the said agreement “That the contents of the present settlement have been explained to the parties in vernacular and they have understood the same to be true and correct” and “That both the parties shall abide by the terms and conditions of the above settlement”. Also, since the respondent admittedly is not illiterate and rather is working as Warder in the Tihar
Jail as a government servant, it cannot be prima facie inferred that he signed the said agreement without reading the same. Any order of Mediation Cell passed on the joint voluntary signed statement of parties and without any force, threat, pressure or coercion is binding on parties and parties cannot be allowed to somersault or to retrace back from the same as the same would defeat the entire purpose of creation of statutory Mediation Cells. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, in view of the aforesaid discussions and law laid down in aforesaid citation, I am of considered opinion that the Mediation Cell’s order dated 18.7.2012 signed by both the parties voluntarily and without any threat, pressure, force or coercion is binding on both the parties and both the parties have to abide by the terms and conditions of the said agreement. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in terms of Mediation Cell’s order dated
18.7.2012 and it is once again clarified that the terms and conditions of said agreement shall be binding upon the parties.”
(emphasis supplied)
Crl.Rev. P.69/2013 Page 4 At the hearing of this petition, learned counsel for petitioner instead of meeting the aforesaid reasoning in the impugned order has tried to make out a new ground to escape the consequences of the settlement agreement by lamely urging that petitioner had agreed to pay a sum of `1,61,000/- and not
`6,61,000/- and that petitioner had signed the settlement agreement without going through the contents of the said agreement. It was fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this petition the aforesaid ground has not been taken but had drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned order to point out that after passing of the impugned order, an application was filed before the appellate court stating that learned Mediator was in a hurry to leave the mediation centre as it was 5.00 p.m. and petitioner had signed the mediation settlement agreement at the instance of
Mediator without reading it believing that what was agreed upon during the mediation proceedings is reflected in the aforesaid mediation agreement settlement.
In the impugned order, it is noted that petitioner had not made any such grievance by filing any application before the Mediator till passing of the impugned order. Not only this, learned counsel for petitioner could not even point out as to when it had come to the knowledge of petitioner that the amount reflected in the mediation settlement agreement is `6,61,000/- and not `1,61,000/-.
In the face of afore-noted well reasoned findings returned in the impugned order, it cannot be accepted by any prudent person that petitioner who is not an illiterate person had signed the mediation settlement agreement without reading at the instance of the learned mediator. Even if it is assumed for argument sake that petitioner had signed the settlement at
Crl.Rev. P.69/2013 Page 5 the instance of learned Mediator without reading it, then petitioner ought to have legitimately filed an application before the learned Mediator stating in so many words that the mediation settlement agreement arrived at for
`6,61,000/- and not `1,61,000/-. Having not done so, petitioner cannot assail the impugned order with a view to wriggle out of the mediation settlement agreement. It has to be kept in mind that once the dispute between the parties has been settled by the process of mediation, which has a statutory recognition now, it would be indeed in the interest of the administration of justice to attach importance to such settlement agreements which have to be treated as solemn. Attaching sanctity to the settlement agreements, Apex Court in Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agarwal & Ors.
Crl.M.A. No.1566/2013 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.A.No. 1568/2013 (condonation of delay)
The application is allowed and delay of 48 days in filing the petition is condoned for the reasons disclosed in paragraph No.2 of the application.
CRL. M.C. No.69/2013 & Crl.M.A.No.1567/2013 In the criminal appeal No.18/2012 arising out of CC No. 643/2001 pertaining to PS Najafgarh, Delhi under Section 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 the parties were referred to Mediation
Centre at Dwarka Courts, New Delhi where the matrimonial disputes between the parties were mutually settled and terms of settlement were reduced into writing in the settlement agreement of 18th July, 2012 2013:DHC:681 Crl.Rev. P.69/2013 Page 2
(Annexure-F), which is signed by petitioner as well as respondent herein.
On the basis of the aforesaid settlement agreement, order disposing of the appeal in terms of the above-said settlement agreement was passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts on 26th September, 2012, which is impugned herein.
After entering upon a settlement with respondent for a sum of
`6,61,000/- to be paid in installments, petitioner before the appellate court had tried to wriggle out of the aforesaid settlement agreement but was not allowed to do so. The pertinent findings returned in the impugned order are as under:-
“To my specific query as to why the respondent had signed the said Mediation Cell’s agreement dated 18.7.2012, it is stated by the ld. Counsel for respondent that the respondent had inadvertently not read the said agreement before signing the same and that at no point of time the respondent had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.6.61 lakh to the appellant towards settlement of all disputes, as mentioned in the said agreement. The respondent had admitted that he is 12th class passed and working as Warder in Tihar Jail. It is also admitted by the learned counsel for respondent that no application to the effect that the respondent had not agreed for making payment of Rs.6.61 lakh as mentioned in the
Mediation Cell’s order dated 18.7.2012 has been moved before the ld. Mediator till date. Admittedly, no pressure, threat, coercion or force was exerted on the respondent for signing the said agreement. Also the ld. Counsel for respondent had admitted that the respondent has not made any complaint against the ld. Mediator for allegedly getting the aforesaid agreement illegally signed from the respondent.
Crl.Rev. P.69/2013 Page 3 In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no material before the Court from which it can be inferred prima facie that the respondent had signed the said agreement without reading the same or that he had never consented voluntarily for the payment of Rs.6.61 lakh to the appellant. Also, it is clearly mentioned in the clause nos. 13 and 14 of the said agreement “That the contents of the present settlement have been explained to the parties in vernacular and they have understood the same to be true and correct” and “That both the parties shall abide by the terms and conditions of the above settlement”. Also, since the respondent admittedly is not illiterate and rather is working as Warder in the Tihar
Jail as a government servant, it cannot be prima facie inferred that he signed the said agreement without reading the same. Any order of Mediation Cell passed on the joint voluntary signed statement of parties and without any force, threat, pressure or coercion is binding on parties and parties cannot be allowed to somersault or to retrace back from the same as the same would defeat the entire purpose of creation of statutory Mediation Cells. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, in view of the aforesaid discussions and law laid down in aforesaid citation, I am of considered opinion that the Mediation Cell’s order dated 18.7.2012 signed by both the parties voluntarily and without any threat, pressure, force or coercion is binding on both the parties and both the parties have to abide by the terms and conditions of the said agreement. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in terms of Mediation Cell’s order dated
18.7.2012 and it is once again clarified that the terms and conditions of said agreement shall be binding upon the parties.”
(emphasis supplied)
Crl.Rev. P.69/2013 Page 4 At the hearing of this petition, learned counsel for petitioner instead of meeting the aforesaid reasoning in the impugned order has tried to make out a new ground to escape the consequences of the settlement agreement by lamely urging that petitioner had agreed to pay a sum of `1,61,000/- and not
`6,61,000/- and that petitioner had signed the settlement agreement without going through the contents of the said agreement. It was fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this petition the aforesaid ground has not been taken but had drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned order to point out that after passing of the impugned order, an application was filed before the appellate court stating that learned Mediator was in a hurry to leave the mediation centre as it was 5.00 p.m. and petitioner had signed the mediation settlement agreement at the instance of
Mediator without reading it believing that what was agreed upon during the mediation proceedings is reflected in the aforesaid mediation agreement settlement.
In the impugned order, it is noted that petitioner had not made any such grievance by filing any application before the Mediator till passing of the impugned order. Not only this, learned counsel for petitioner could not even point out as to when it had come to the knowledge of petitioner that the amount reflected in the mediation settlement agreement is `6,61,000/- and not `1,61,000/-.
In the face of afore-noted well reasoned findings returned in the impugned order, it cannot be accepted by any prudent person that petitioner who is not an illiterate person had signed the mediation settlement agreement without reading at the instance of the learned mediator. Even if it is assumed for argument sake that petitioner had signed the settlement at
Crl.Rev. P.69/2013 Page 5 the instance of learned Mediator without reading it, then petitioner ought to have legitimately filed an application before the learned Mediator stating in so many words that the mediation settlement agreement arrived at for
`6,61,000/- and not `1,61,000/-. Having not done so, petitioner cannot assail the impugned order with a view to wriggle out of the mediation settlement agreement. It has to be kept in mind that once the dispute between the parties has been settled by the process of mediation, which has a statutory recognition now, it would be indeed in the interest of the administration of justice to attach importance to such settlement agreements which have to be treated as solemn. Attaching sanctity to the settlement agreements, Apex Court in Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agarwal & Ors.
JUDGMENT
(2005) 3 SCC 299 quashed the criminal proceedings keeping in mind the settlement arrived at between the parties despite the opposition by one of the parties. Aforesaid dictum of the Apex Court has been followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Jaibir v. State 2007 (142) DLT 141; Manas Acharya v. State & Anr. 2012 VII AD (Delhi) 92 and Anshu Soni & Ors. v. State & Anr. 2013 I AD (Delhi) 111 wherein one of the parties had resisted to abide by the mediation settlement agreement, still the criminal proceedings were quashed. In view of the afore-noted factual and legal position, this Court finds upon perusal of the impugned order (Annexure-H) and the mediation settlement agreement (Annexure-F) that reliance placed by petitioner’s counsel upon Rule 25 of the Mediation and Conciliation Rules, 2004 of this Court requiring the Court to be satisfied that the parties have settled their disputes is of no avail as the afore-referred findings in the impugned order Crl.Rev. P.69/2013 Page 6 reflect due application of mind of the appellate court to provide binding effect of mediation settlement agreement in question. No lacunae or infirmity of any kind in the mediation settlement agreement (Annexure-F) or the impugned order could be pointed out by petitioner’s counsel at the hearing of this petition. Upon finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, I dismiss this petition and the application while making it clear that until and unless a patent lacuna is found in such mediation settlement agreements, they have to be honoured to instill confidence in the parties in the mediation process. With aforesaid observations, this petition and the application are disposed of. (SUNIL GAUR) Judge FEBRUARY 08, 2013 vn