KIRTI JAIN @ SHALU JAIN Vs. J.P. JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner No. 1 married one Pankaj Jain, son of the respondent herein, on 18.4.1999. This marriage could not succeed. As per the allegations of the petitioner No. 1, there were demands of dowry by her husband Pankaj Jain and his family who committed several acts of cruelty and harassment to her and she was ultimately turned out of the matrimonial home by Pankaj Jain and the respondent herein. She lodged complaint with Crime Against Women Cell (CAW Cell) against Pankaj Jain and his family members including the respondent. Due to intervention of relatives and friends, settlement was arrived at and was also reduced in writing. Pursuant to the said settlement, various proceedings between the parties were withdrawn. However, it seems that the peace and truce between them is still alluding. After withdrawal of the various cases, the respondent has instituted fresh proceedings. He has filed a suit for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 3,05,000/ - against the petitioners in the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi, claiming damages for alleged defamation. Not satisfied with this, he has also instituted criminal complaint against the petitioners under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code for defamation. In this complaint, summoning orders dated 7.10.2004 have been issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court by means of instant petition for quashing of the summoning orders and proceedings in the said criminal complaint.

(2.) THE genesis and thrust of the petitioners is that once there was a settlement between the parties, which has also been reduced in writing and pursuant whereto all the cases between the parties filed against each other were withdrawn, the respondent could not have filed these proceedings for defamation arising out of the earlier proceedings. It may be mentioned at this stage itself that the complaint is based on the allegations made by the petitioner No. 1 in her complaint filed in CAW Cell, wherein allegations of dowry demand and torture were made against Pankaj Jain and his family members including the respondent herein. Thus, according to the petitioners, when the entire dispute resulted in settlement which has been acted upon as well, it is not open to the respondent to file any such criminal proceedings for defamation based on the complaint filed by the petitioner in CAW Cell. The respondent herein has denied any such settlement and alleges that document in the name of settlement/compromise deed filed by the petitioners is false and does not bear the signature of the respondent.

(3.) THE question for determination is as to whether there was settlement between the parties and whether purported settlement precludes the respondent from filing the aforesaid proceedings.