There was a lot of problems which were faced by the litigants when they face matrimonial cases…One of the most common problem is wife side backs out when they take money from husband side and the husband side remains stuck even after the payment.

The criminal cases goes on and still there is no end.

In my personal experience also I faced such problems after settlement the parties come to me for further process.Although a different counsel is engaged when the settlement takes place and there are so many problems faced by the parties when finally the cases comes for final disposal in courts…

The most common problem is if one party backs out after taking money of settlement.

Then husband side runs piller to post to quash the matters but no relief now there is a new Delhi High Court Judgement which talks about how to address the problem and guideline has been issued by the Hon’ble Courts.

The recent Judgement of Chatterpal and Ors talks about the various guideline for mediation as listed below.

In the present case a settlement was arrived between the husband and wife case was quashed as summons were not issued against the relatives of the husband they did not applied for quashing and on one fine day the magistrate court issued summons against the relative of the husband.

The relatives of the Husband approached Hon’ble High Court for quashing.

the complainant conveniently changed her mind and appeared before this Court only to inform that she had not entered into agreement with them but only with her husband and therefore, FIR cannot be quashed, even after receiving the entire amount of settlement including the amount for
quashing of FIR.

In other words, they thought that they were fortunate that the FIR had been quashed, but
unfortunately, the entire amount was paid to the complainant for quashing of the FIR without their names being included in the quashing petition. And even now, their misfortune, as far as the present litigation
is concerned, has not come to an end as the complainant now refuses to give her statement for quashing of the FIR.

The complainant after issuance of Court notice appeared before the Court and submitted that she has settled the case only with her husband, though she admits that she has received the entire settlement amount, including Rs.65,000/- received for quashing of FIR on 31.07.2015 as per
settlement agreement. She states that matter may again be sent for mediation qua the present accused(s) and she will settle the matter again with them, as the money in this case was given by her husband and she had, thus, settled it with him only.

Court held

If the Settlement Agreement is scrutinized from a close angle, it
will be revealed that though it has been signed by the husband only, it is
clear from the contents of the agreement that the settlement was being
arrived at on behalf of all the respondents i.e. co-accused persons in
present FIR since they were his close family members.

This approach of the complainant, in the considered opinion of
this Court, is neither correct nor acceptable as she has already received
the entire amount as per the settlement agreement towards settlement of
all her claims and matrimonial disputes as well as for quashing of
present FIR. In case this Court returns a finding that the settlement was
arrived solely between the wife/complainant and the husband, it would
undermine the fundamental objective of the process of mediation in this
case. Suffice it to say, the very purpose of mediation in this case has
already been defeated as legal proceedings have been prolonged and
dragged on for 10 long years despite a successful mediation between the
parties.

In the given set of facts and circumstances, this Court deems it fit
to advert to the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ruchi
Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal (2005) 3 SCC 299, wherein the Apex
Court while quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused
husband on the basis of compromise even though the complainant had
refused to give her consent

In the given set of facts and circumstances, this Court deems it fit
to advert to the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ruchi
Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal (2005) 3 SCC 299, wherein the Apex
Court while quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused
husband on the basis of compromise even though the complainant had
refused to give her consent,

1. Rather than merely writing in the Settlement Agreement that a petition for quashing would be filed “by the respondents for quashing of FIR”, had the mediator specifically mentioned that the FIR as well as all proceedings emanating therefrom were to be quashed qua all the accused persons, along with their names, in that case, even if the learned Magistrate was to decide on issuance of summons to the accused persons, the said Agreement drafted by the Mediator would have come to the rescue of the present petitioners.
2. Specify Names of Parties: The agreement must specifically contain names of all the parties to the agreement. (ii) Avoid Ambiguous Terms: The terms such as ‘respondent’, respondents’, ‘petitioner’ or ‘petitioners’, in absence of their names in the agreement must be avoided in an agreement as it leads to ambiguities and further litigation.
3. (iii) Include All Details: The terms and conditions of the agreement reached between the parties, howsoever small and minute they may be, must be incorporated in the agreement.
4. (iv) Timeline For Compliance: The timeline of the fulfilment of terms and conditions as well as their execution must be clearly mentioned. There should be no tentative dates as far as possible.
5. (v) Default Clause: A default clause should be incorporated inthe agreement and the consequences thereof should be explained and enlisted in the agreement itself.
6. (vi) Mode of Payment: In case any payment is to be made as per settlement, the agreement should specify the method of payment agreed upon between the parties which should also

Nitish Banka

Nitish Banka is an advocate practicing in Supreme Court of India and can be reached at [email protected] or 9891549997