IMTIAZ SAGIR KHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in Crl. M. C. No. 7005-14/2006 is for quashing the FIR No. 344 of 2004 under Sections 498-A/406/495 read with 34 IPC registered at police Station Seema Puri, Delhi. The ground on which the quashing is sought, is that during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned additional Sessions Judge ('asj') at Karkardooma Court, Delhi where the revision petition filed by the Petitioner No. 1 husband challenging the order dated 2nd May 2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('mm')directing payment of interim maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- per month to respondent No. 2 wife was pending, a compromise was recorded between the parties, whereby the petitioner was to pay Respondent No. 2 a sum of rs. 7. 5 Lakhs in full and final settlement of all her claims and pursuant to which all proceedings between the parties would be terminated. It is submitted that although the petitioners have been throughout willing to abide by the terms of settlement Respondent No. 2 has sought to resile from the compromise. In fact she filed an application before the learned ASJ stating that she agreed to the settlement under a bona fide mistake and sought disposal of the revision petition on merits. Reliance is placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ruchi agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal, 2005 II AD (S. C.) 409 and Mohd. Shamim v. Nahid Begum (Smt.), (2005) 3 SCC 302 in support of the plea that a party to settlement that has been recorded in a judicial order cannot be permitted to resile from such settlement.

(2.) CRL M G No. 7004/2006 is filed by husband Imtiaz Sagir Khan challenging orders dated 14th August 2006 and 29th September 2006 passed by the learned ASJ in CR No. 20/2006. The dismissal of CR No. 20 of 2006 resulted in the affirmation of the order dated 2nd May 2006 passed by the learned MM directing payment of interim maintenance of Rs. 10. 000/- per month by the Petitioner to Respondent.

(3.) ON 22nd November 2006 this Court passed the following order in these two petitions as well as in a third petition being Crl M C No. 6992-98 of 2006 (which seeks the quashing of FIR No. 125 of 2006 registered against the petitioners therein for the offences under Sections 465/468/469/471 read with Section 34 IPC):