Brijesh Kumar vs. State
AI Summary
In a landmark settlement of matrimonial dispute intertwined with criminal proceedings, the Delhi High Court approved a compromise deed where the husband agreed to pay Rs. 25 Lacs to his wife in full settlement of all claims. The court permitted withdrawal of criminal revision petitions challenging FIR No. 196/2003, paving the way for mutual dissolution of marriage and quashing of criminal proceedings.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
Respondent's Counsel
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
An FIR No. 196/2003 was filed at Ambedkar Nagar Police Station in 2003 arising from a matrimonial dispute. The husband (Brijesh Kumar) and co-petitioner (Om Prakash) filed Criminal Revision Petitions CRL.REV.P. 85/2010 and 86/2010 in the Delhi High Court challenging the criminal proceedings. During the pendency of these petitions, the parties negotiated and reached a settlement. On August 25, 2010, they executed a Compromise Deed wherein the husband agreed to pay Rs. 25 Lacs to the wife in full and final settlement of all her claims against him and his family members. The parties also agreed to file a joint petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, with the first motion already filed. The mode and manner of payment of Rs. 25 Lacs was specified in the Compromise Deed.
Timeline of Events
FIR No. 196/2003 filed at Ambedkar Nagar Police Station in matrimonial dispute
Criminal Revision Petitions CRL.REV.P. 85/2010 and 86/2010 filed in Delhi High Court
Petitions registered in Delhi High Court
First hearing date in Delhi High Court
Compromise Deed executed by parties with settlement terms
Delhi High Court approved settlement and dismissed petitions as withdrawn
Key Factual Findings
Parties have arrived at a settlement documented through Compromise Deed dated August 25, 2010
Source: Current Court Finding
Husband agreed to pay Rs. 25 Lacs to wife in full and final settlement of all claims
Source: Recited from Compromise Deed and Counsel Statement
Parties agreed to file joint petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent
Source: Recited from Compromise Deed and Counsel Statement
First motion of joint petition for dissolution of marriage has already been filed
Source: Counsel Statement
Mode and manner of payment of Rs. 25 Lacs set out in Compromise Deed
Source: Counsel Statement
Primary Legal Issues
Secondary Legal Issues
Questions of Law
Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioners (husband and co-petitioner Om Prakash) argued that they had reached a settlement with the complainant/respondent wife through a Compromise Deed dated August 25, 2010. The petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 25 Lacs to the wife in full and final settlement of all her claims against him and his family members. The parties further agreed to file a joint petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, with the first motion already filed. The petitioners sought permission to withdraw the criminal revision petitions to enable filing of an appropriate petition for quashing of FIR No. 196/2003 and all proceedings arising therefrom.
Respondent's Arguments
The respondent (State through APP Navin Sharma and the complainant/wife through Advocate Jyotika Kalra) did not oppose the settlement. The complainant accepted the compromise deed and agreed to the withdrawal of the criminal revision petitions, indicating her consent to the settlement terms and the mutual dissolution of marriage.
Court's Reasoning
The court noted that both parties had jointly informed the court that they had arrived at a settlement, which was reduced into writing through the Compromise Deed dated August 25, 2010. The court found that the settlement terms were clear: the husband would pay Rs. 25 Lacs to the wife in full and final settlement of all claims, and both parties would file a joint petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. The court accepted the counsel's statement that the first motion of the joint petition had already been filed. The court found the settlement reasonable and acceptable, and granted leave for withdrawal of the criminal revision petitions as prayed. The court dismissed the petitions as withdrawn, thereby allowing the parties to proceed with the quashing petition for the FIR and the mutual dissolution of marriage.
- Emphasis on Alternative Dispute Resolution and Settlement
- Recognition of Party Autonomy in Matrimonial Matters
- Pragmatic Approach to Criminal Proceedings in Family Disputes
Impugned Orders
Specific Directions
- 1.Petitioner/Husband agreed to pay Rs. 25 Lacs to Respondent No.2/Complainant in full and final settlement of all claims
- 2.Parties shall file joint petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent
- 3.First motion of joint petition for dissolution of marriage has already been filed
- 4.Mode and manner of payment of Rs. 25 Lacs set out in Compromise Deed dated 25.08.2010
- 5.Petitioner permitted to withdraw present petition to file appropriate petition for quashing of FIR bearing No. 196/2003 and all proceedings arising therefrom
Precedential Assessment
Persuasive (Other High Court)
While this is a single judge order from Delhi High Court dealing with a specific matrimonial settlement, it demonstrates judicial approach to compromise in criminal matrimonial disputes. The order is persuasive for similar cases in other High Courts but not binding precedent. The reasoning reflects established principles of settlement and alternative dispute resolution in family law matters.
Tips for Legal Practice
Legal Tags
Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
First Hearing
Listed On:
19 Feb 2010
Order Text
- $& 9.$
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 85/2010 $+$
BRIJESH KUMAR
..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Gyan Prakash, Advocate and Mr. Neeraj Pal, Advocate with petitioner in person.
versus
STATE AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for the State Ms. Jyotika Kalra, Advocate with respondent No.2/complainant in person.
CRL.REV.P. 86/2010
OM PRAKASH & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Gyan Prakash, Advocate and Mr. Neeraj Pal, Advocate with petitioners in person.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for the State Ms. Jyotika Kalra, Advocate with respondent No.2/complainant in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
$%$
ORDER 25.11.2010
Counsels for the parties jointly state that the parties have arrived at a settlement. The settlement was reduced into writing vide Compromise Deed dated 25.08.2010. Photocopy of the Compromise Deed is handed over by the counsel for the petitioners and taken on the record.
Signature Not Verified<br>Digitally Signed By:A) ULYA<br>Certify that the digitar file and<br>physical file have been compared and<br>the digital data is as per the physical<br>file and no page is missing.
It is stated by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner/husband has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.25 lacs to respondent No.2/complainant in full and final settlement of all her claims against him and the members of his family. It is further stated that the parties shall file a joint petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, first motion of which has already been filed. The mode and manner of paying the aforesaid amount of Rs.25 lacs has also been set out in the Compromise Deed. Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, states that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition so that he may file an appropriate petition for quashing of the FIR bearing No.196/2003 and all the proceedings arising therefrom.
Leave, as prayed for, is granted. The petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.
$\mathord{\vartriangleleft}$
HIMA KOHLI,J
NOVEMBER 25, 2010 $rkb$
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order