Miss Geeta Kapur v. The State of Maharashtra

5) Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that, the Petitioner has paid more than Rs.[7] lakh for the medical treatment of the Respondent No.5. Said payment was towards the settlement between the parties. Thereafter, the Respondent No.5 had agreed to settle entire dispute by accepting a sum of Rs. 3 lakh as full and final compensation for his loss of income and any future medical expenses. However, later on the Respondent No.5 backed out. The learned Advocate has submitted that, once a party has availed certain benefits out of an amicable settlement, he/she is not allowed to turn back and take a different stand. In this background, the Petition may be allowed.

6) Learned APP has submitted that, it is the choice of Respondent No.5 whether to settle the matter or not. However, considering the facts and circumstances, appropriate Order may be passed in the interest of justice.

7) Looking at the rival submissions, a question that arises for our consideration is whether the subject criminal case be quashed or not. In this regard, it would be apt to refer the following reported Judgments. i) Ruchi Agarwal vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal & Ors., 2005 (3) SCC 299. In this case, the appellant had filed a complaint alleging offence under Section 498A, 323, 506 of I.P.C. and under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court quashed the criminal complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction to the police station. As a result, the chargesheet and the summoning Order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Nainital were quashed and the investigation of the case was transferred to the concerned Police Station Bilaspur, District Rampur. The said complaint was filed on 10th April

2002. Thereafter the divorce petition was filed by the appellant before the Family Court, at Nanital. In the said divorce petition a compromise was arrived at between the parties in which it was stated that, the first respondent-husband was willing for consent divorce and that the appellant/ wife had received all her Stridhan and maintenance in a lump sum. It is also stated in the said compromise deed that the parties to the proceeding would withdrew all civil and criminal complaints filed against each other which includes the criminal complaint filed by the appellant which was subject matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The appellant gave her statement that, she wanted a divorce and that there is no dispute about any amount pending. Hence, the Family Court, Nainital granted a divorce. The appellant also withdrawn her complaint under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed before the Family Court. However, the appellant did not take any steps to withdraw the complaint under Section 498-A etc. Hence, the respondent husband filed the proceeding to quash the same. However, before the Supreme Court the appellant-wife took a stand that though she had signed the compromise deed, the same was obtained by the respondent husband and his family under threat and coercion and she did not receive the lump sum maintenance and her Stridhan properties. In the backdrop, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that, pursuant to the compromise deed the Respondent/husband has given a consent divorce which the appellant wanted. Thus, he has performed his part of the obligation of the compromise deed. Even the appellant also performed her part of the obligation partially; withdrawing the criminal complaint under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the appellant having received the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of the terms of the compromise, it was observed that the conduct of the Appellant indicates that the criminal complaint under Section 498-A etc. was filed by the appellant against the respondent only to harass him. Hence the complaint was quashed. ii) Mohd. Shamim & Ors. vs. Nahid Begum & Anr., 2005 All MR (Cri) 828 (S.C.). In this case, an amicable settlement was arrived at between the husband and wife during the hearing of the anticipatory bail application. As per the said settlement, the wife had agreed to accept a certain sum towards the dowry, Mehar, past, present and future maintenance of her. An affidavit in support of the settlement was also signed by her. Later on, the husband filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the F.I.R. registered against him and others under Section 406, 498A r/w. 34 of the I.P.C. The said application was opposed by the wife stating that she does not wish to compromise the matter and wants to continue with the said F.I.R. Therefore, the learned Single Judge of the High Court refused to interfere in the matter and dismissed the application. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that out of the settlement amount, Rs.2,25,000/- were paid to the wife. The balance amount of Rs.50,000/- was payable at the time of the complainant’s making a statement and giving no objection for quashing the F.I.R. Said amount was retained in the Court as per the Court’s direction. No dispute remained between the parties regarding the payment of dower amount (Mehar), dowry Articles etc. In this background, the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that, the settlement was arrived at the intervention of a judicial officer of the rank of the Additional Sessions Judge and it was a genuine settlement. Hence, contention of the wife that she was not aware of the contents thereof and the said agreement as also her affidavit were signed by her due to misrepresentation of facts was rejected holding that the denial of the execution of said deed of settlement is an afterthought on the part of the wife. In view of these facts the F.I.R. was quashed. iii) Mrs.Usha Badri Poonawala vs. K.Kurien Babu & Anr., 2005 ALL MR (Cri) 2728. In this case, the oral evidence on record disclosed that the ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ was executed by the parties on 9th September 1997, under which the Respondent No.1 received a sum of Rs.3,76,896/-. He admitted the contents of the said document on oath. The Memorandum specifically recorded that irrespective of the claim made by the Respondent No.1 in the Criminal Complaint, money matters involved in the case have been settled amicably. After having agreed to settle the dispute amicably and after having agreed to withdraw the complaint, the Respondent No.1 wanted to prosecute the complaint only on the ground that, he was to receive something more than what is mentioned in the written Memorandum. This stand was taken nearly seven years after the execution of Memorandum. Hence, considering the conduct of Respondent No.1 it is held that, the continuation of the proceedings by him will amount to abuse of process of law and therefore, the complaint deserves to be quashed.

7.1) From the aforementioned decisions it can be discerned that, in reasonable cases, where a party received a considerable benefit out of a solemnly agreed settlement or a settlement arrived at the intervention of a senior judicial officer and it was a genuine settlement, however, such party backed out of said settlement, then looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, the High Court can exercise its powers under Article 226 and Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the concerned criminal case.

8) Reference to a recent decision of this Court in Dinesh Mangilal and Others vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., Criminal Application No.464 of 2012, dated 24th January 2024, is also essential here. In this unreported case, in view of the settlement with Respondent No.2 therein, the Applicants therein had withdrawn 2 Civil Suits from this Court and 2 Civil Suits from the Bombay City Civil Court. Further, the parties agreed to exchange the possessions of certain Flats (tenements) in dispute by way of sale subject to certain monetary adjustments. Thus, said Respondent No.2 was benefited out of the said settlement as he got rid of the litigation without any contest. The Consent Terms also noted that, the parties agree and undertake to withdraw all police complaints and criminal cases filed against each other. Therefore, said Respondent No.2 was to withdraw the criminal case of 2005 filed by him against the said Applicants, however, he backed out stating that, he has not given consent for quashing the subject F.I.R. on the ground that, the Consent Terms are not acted upon. Said stand was very inconsistent to the Consent Terms produced on record, it was taken after a long time and with oblique intent as perceivable from the facts and circumstances of the case. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 and/or his Advocate on record neither filed reply to the Application nor availed the hearing opportunity. The Consent Terms were duly signed by the Respondent No.2. In this background and considering the above referred three reported decisions, the Criminal Application No.464 of 2012 was allowed and the C.C.No. 394/PW/2005 was quashed and set aside.

9) In the case in hand, the Affidavit-in-Reply has been duly sworn by the Respondent No.5 wherein he has categorically stated that, the Petitioner had already borne his medical expenses and the same were more than Rs.[7] lakh. Thereafter, the Respondent No.5 agreed to settle entire dispute by accepting a sum of Rs. 3 lakh as full and final compensation for his loss of income and any further medical expenses.

10) The accident had occurred on 12th March, 2015. The Petitioner borne the said medical expenditures of Rs.[7] lakh plus, within two months of the accident (vide receipts Exh.-‘B’). Thereafter, this Petition was filed within one month.

11) The facts and circumstances discussed above indicate that, immediately after the accident, the parties agreed to settle the matter, therefore, Respondent No.5 allowed the Petitioner to pay for his medical expenditures. Accordingly, this Petition came to be filed. However, the Respondent No.5 backed out of the settlement.

11.1) Be that as it may, the fact remains that, the Respondent No.5 backed out of the settlement after having solemnly agreed for the same but without refunding Rs.[7] lakh to the Petitioner, which she incurred towards his medical treatment. By providing the urgent medical aid in a costly private hospital, the Petitioner performed her obligation under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, to some extent. She was also ready to pay additional Rs.[3] lakh as compensation. However, after backing out of the settlement, the Respondent No.5 has not come forward to contest this Petition. The offence of Section 338 of I.P.C. is compoundable by the person to whom hurt is caused, with the permission of the Court.

12) In view of the above discussion and considering the total amount of the medical expenditures borne by Petitioner, continuation of C.C.No.1058/PS/2016 against her would be abuse of process of law, hence the same is liable to be quashed. Thus, we deem it appropriate to allow this Petition but with a direction to pay the Respondent No.5 the balance settlement/compensation amount of Rs.[3] lakh already deposited with this Court alongwith interest accrued thereon till date. However, this will not affect the right of Respondent No.5 to claim adequate compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 or any other law, on account of the injuries he sustained in the aforesaid accident, but subject to limitation, if any.

12.2) C.C.No.1058/PS/2016 registered against the Petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 44th Court, at Andheri, Mumbai, is quashed and set aside.

12.3) The Registry of this Court is directed to pay the Respondent No.5 Rs.[3] lakh deposited in this Court by the Petitioner alongwith interest accrued thereon till date.