(Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
Ramesh Chander ___________________________________ Appellant;
v.
State of NCT of Delhi and Another _________________ Respondent(s).
Criminal Appeal No(S). 762 of 2018 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9807/2015], decided on May 17, 2018
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of due of service of notice/representation.
3. The High Court has refused to quash the criminal proceedings under Sections 451/380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which was sought by the appellant on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement.
4. The High Court took the view that under the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) a full and final settlement which would justify quashing of the criminal proceedings would be feasible only if the parties dissolve their marriage by mutual consent.
5. We have read and considered the MOU. The said MOU contemplates payment of a sum of Rs. 60 lakh and handing over of certain immovable properties (two flats) to the respondent No. 2. There is no dispute that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 60 lakh and the immovable properties have been parted with. We do not find any term in the MOU which relates to divorce. In these circumstances, as the terms of the MOU have been complied with by the appellant and divorce is not a part thereof, the High Court, according to us, fell into error in refusing to quash the impugned criminal proceedings against the appellant.
6. Consequently and in the light of the above, we allow this appeal, interfere with the order of the High Court by setting aside the same and quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant in connection with FIR No. 446 of 2014 dated under Sections 451/380 of IPC registered at P.S. Shahbad Dairy, Delhi.
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO(S). 9807/2015
Ramesh Chander __________________________________ Appellant
v.
State of NCT of Delhi and Another __________________ Respondent(s)
Date: 17-05-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Sharma, AOR
Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Ms. Anushree Prashit Kapadia, AOR [N/P]
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
7. Leave granted.
8. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
———
