Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Anupam Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 August, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:32969]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 335/2022
Anupam Sharma S/o Sh. Manoharlal Sharma, Aged About 36
Years, R/o W.no. 6, Bidasar, Bidasar, Dist. Churu, Raj.- 331501.
Presently R/o At Golders Green, Building No. 2, Wing B, Flat No.
504, Holy Cross Road, Ic Colony Extn., Borivali (W), Mumbai,
Maharashtra- 400103.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Smt. Bhagyashree Sharma D/o Sh. Ganesh Sharma
(Pujari), R/o W.no. 3, Salasar, Sujangarh, Salasar, Dist.
Churu, Raj. 331506.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari
Mr. Aman Maheshwari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
Ms. Bhagyashree Sharma,
(Respondent No.2 present in person)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
05/08/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"...
(a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, to end the multiple litigation by clubbing all the matters/cases or application filed by the Respondent No. 2 or her family members against the Petitioner or his family members which are pending at Ratangarh and Sujangarh be decided by this Hon'ble Court in the light and terms of Settlement Agreement dated 06.04.2022, (Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32969] (2 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022]
(b) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction and also in the light of mutually agreed Settlement Agreement, may kindly quash all the pending cases or application or proceedings, which are as follows -
S. Title Court Filed Under
No. Provision
1. Bhagyashree v. ACJM - Ratangarh Section 125 CrPC
Anupam (Case No-
343/2021)
2. State of Rajasthan v. ACJM- Ratangarh Section 190 in
Anupam & Ors. connection with
FIR 18/2018
along with trial of
charges levied as
per chargesheet.
3. Bhagyashree ADJ Sujangarh Section 13B
Sharma v Anupam under the Hindu
Sharma (Case No. - Marriage Act,
31/2022) 1955.
c) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
Respondent No. 2 be directed to comply with the terms of Settlement Agreement and withdraw all the cases and applications filed against the Petitioner or his family members in the light of the mutually agreed Settlement Agreement dated 06.04.2022,
d) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Ld. ADJ Sujangarh Court, District Churu, and Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Ratangarh, Churu to not pass any order contrary to mutually agreed Settlement Agreement,
e) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, this Hon'ble Court may exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to protect the rights of petitioner and to safeguard him from harassment."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner- Anupam Sharma with the respondent No.2- (Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32969] (3 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022] Bhagyashree Sharma was solemnized on 19.11.2013 at Village Salasar, District Churu, Rajasthan as per Hindu rites and rituals. One daughter namely Ms. 'K' was born out of the said wedlock. However, due to certain matrimonial differences between the petitioner and the respondent No.2, the couple started living separately from 13.08.2017 and the minor daughter, Ms. 'K' started living with respondent No.2.
3. Owing to the matrimonial differences between the petitioner and the respondent No.2, various civil/criminal proceedings have been initiated by the parties against each other. The details of the various cases pending between the parties are as under:-
(1) Cases No.343/2021, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh.
(2) State of Astrakhan Vs. Anupam & Ors., pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh. (3) Case No.31/2022: Bhagyashree Sharma Vs. Anupam Sharma, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh.
(4) Bhagyashree Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan (REG No.257/2021), pending in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-9, Jaipur Metro I. (5) Yudhister Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan REG.
No.11870/2019, pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate- 8, Jaipur Metro I.
4. The record of the case indicates that it was when the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh, while hearing an application filed by the respondent No.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking interim maintenance, passed an order for seizure of the petitioner's passport, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.322/2022 titled as 'Anupam Sharma v. State of Rajasthan' praying for the following reliefs:- (Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32969] (4 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022] "In the said premises and to meet the ends of justice, the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may benevolently be pleased to allow this petition and to:
a) Quash and set aside the order dated 18/12/2021 passed in Criminal Revision Petition 10/2021 by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, Churu and the order dated 26/11/2021 passed by the Ld. ACJM, Ratangarh, Churu in connection with FIR No.11/2018 registered on 01.02.2018 at police station Salasar, Sujangarh, Churu;
b) Allow the Petitioner to travel to Singapore for joining his employment;
c) To direct the release of Applicant's Passport;
d) To lay down procedure to further participate in court proceedings without hampering his foreign employment subject to any condition deemed just by this Hon'ble Court;...."
5. During pendency of the proceedings in relation to S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.322/2022 before this Court, learned counsel appearing for both the petitioner and the respondent No.2 jointly submitted that there is a possibility of amicable settlement between the parties and, therefore, the parties be provided for a common platform to negotiate. Taking into consideration the willingness of both parties to resolve their disputes through mediation, this Court, vide order dated 05.03.2022, was pleased to refer the matter to the Mediation Center attached with this Court.
6. On 12.04.2022, when the matter was taken up again by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the presence of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, informed the Court that the mediation has been successful and the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 have entered into a written Mediated Settlement Agreement dated 06.04.2022. This Court in view of the aforesaid statements made at the Bar was pleased to dispose of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.322/2022 (Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32969] (5 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022] "Anupam Sharma v. State of Rajasthan" vide order dated 12.04.2022 while making following observations-
"1. On 05.03.2022, this Court has found element of settlement between the parties and, therefore, referred both the parties for mediation/conciliation before the Mediation Center, attached with this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mediation has been successful and as per the terms of settlement, the petitioner has handed-over an FDR of Rs.1 crore to the respondent- complainant and the remaining amount would be paid/deposited before the second motion.
3. While informing that the parties have decided to dissolve their matrimony, learned counsel submits that a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for mutual divorce has been filed by the petitioner and the complainant.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 28.11.2018, passed by the learned trial Court, to the extent of seizure of petitioner's passport is set aside. 5. The learned trial Court/concerned Station House Officer, whosoever is having custody of petitioner's passport or any other journey documents, is directed to forthwith hand-over same to the petitioner.
6. It is hereby made clear that the petitioner shall be free to undertake any journey abroad in accordance with law.
7. The miscellaneous petition as well as the stay application stands disposed of.
8. In case the petitioner intentionally avoids proceedings before the trial Court or the Family Court, the respondent No.2 shall be free to move application for revival of instant petition and pray for appropriate directions."
7. On 29.07.2022, respondent No. 2 filed an application before this Court-- S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 245/2022 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 322/2022--seeking to recall the order dated 12.04.2022 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 322/2022, which directed the release of the petitioner's passport as well as took the Mediated Settlement Agreement between the parties on record. The application was filed on the ground that although a compromise between the parties was initially reached at the Mediation Centre, the (Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32969] (6 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022] respondent no. 2 later discovered that the ornaments/streedhan, which were claimed to be handed over to the investigating officer by the petitioner, did not match with the list that she had submitted. In other words, the respondent no. 2 alleged that the substantial ornaments/streedhan are still in petitioner's possession. Further, the respondent no. 2 submitted that though as per the Mediated Settlement Agreement dated 06.04.2022, the petitioner tendered a demand draft of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore Only) in the name of their daughter, Ms. 'K', in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sujangarh but later on, the petitioner applied for the return of the demand draft in the trial Court on the ground that the respondent No. 2 is yet to withdraw the criminal case against the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 submitted that according to the settlement agreement, she had time to withdraw the case until the filing of the second motion for divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and therefore, the petitioner's application for withdrawal demonstrates mala fide conduct and an unwillingness to comply with the terms of the Mediated Settlement agreement. For the reasons stated above and the reasons mentioned in her application --S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 245/2022, the respondent No. 2 prayed that she no longer wishes to compromise and seeks to retract from the Mediated Settlement Agreement.
8. At this stage, it is pertinent to note here that during pendency of the S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No.245/2022 filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, the petitioner filed the instant Criminal (Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32969] (7 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022] Misc. Petition before this Court seeking enforcement of the Mediated Settlement Agreement dated 06.04.2022 and also praying for other reliefs which have been reproduced in paragraph 01 of this present order.
9. The S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 245/2022 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 322/2022 filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 came to be decided by this Court vide order dated 08.10.2024 and certain corrections in the order dated 08.10.2024 at the request of petitioner and respondent No.2 were incorporated vide order dated 05.11.2024. The order passed by this Court while disposing of S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No.245/2022 (as it would be after incorporating corrections) is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-
"By way of the present application, the applicant (Bhagya Shri Sharma w/o Anupam Sharma) has prayed that the order dated 12.04.2022 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.322/2022 be recalled and petitioner's passport be ordered to be seized.
2. The applicant, present in person submitted that the order under consideration (12.04.2022) was passed in wake of the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise. She submitted that though a compromise or understanding between the petitioner and her was reduced in writing but later on owing to changed circumstances, the applicant found that the amount being payed in terms of the compromise dated 06.04.2022 (Rs.1,00,00,000/- for her daughter and Rs.80,00,000/- for herself) was not sufficient, more particularly, when her ornaments/streedhan which claimed to be handed over to the investigating officer was not as per the list submitted by her. She assulted that substantial jewellery is still in husband's possession.
3. It was submitted by the applicant that she does not want to continue with the compromise and want to retract. According to her, said compromise is just a piece of paper and unless the compromise is adhered to and fully acted upon, passport can not be handed over to the petitioner i.e. her husband (Anupam Sharma).
4. Heard the applicant and Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari, learned counsel appearing for the husband.
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32969] (8 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022]
5. True it is, that order that 12.04.2022 was passed in view of the fact that the husband and wife (the applicant and respondent) had entered into a compromise and executed an settlement which took place in the mediation centre attached with this Court.
6. It is also not in dispute that the husband had tendered a demand draft of Rs.1,00,00,000/- drawn in the name of his daughter namely Kia to the respondent Ms. Bhagya Shri Sharma (w/o the applicant) and the same is being utilized for Ms. Kia.
7. The husband (Anupam Sharma) is charted financial analyst and working in J.P. Morgan in Singapore.
8. According to this Court, carrier (sic) of the petitioner cannot be stifled on account of matrimonial discord. The seizure of his passport would amount to curtailment of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution.
9. This Court, therefore, does not find any reason to recall the order dated 12.04.2022 as the recalling of the order would amount to seizure of petitioner's passport and his deportation in India.
10. According to this Court, instant application is nothing but a tool to arm-twist her husband (petitioner) to extract more money. The applicant (wife) had gleefully accepted the one time compensation/alimony of Rs.1,80,00,000/- and she has now taken a U-turn just for more money, as evident from the record.
11. That apart, there is no provision of review in criminal procedure code (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") and the same is barred under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C.
12. The criminal misc. application is thus rejected."
[Emphasis supplied]
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case, the respondent No.2 has voluntarily and out of own her free will, signed the Mediated Settlement Agreement dated 06.04.2022, and the same was recorded by this Court in its order dated 12.04.2022, passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.322/2022. Learned counsel submitted that in furtherance of complying with the terms of the Mediated Settlement Agreement, the petitioner on 06.04.2022 created a Fixed Deposit (F.D.) of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore Only) in the name (Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32969] (9 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022] of his daughter, Ms. 'K', and also created a Demand Draft (D.D.) of Rs.80,00,000/- (Eightly Lacs Only)in favour of respondent No.2- Bhagyashree. Learned counsel submitted that the F.D. of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore Only) in favour of the daughter, Ms. 'K', was handed over to the respondent No.2 at the time of filing the application seeking mutual divorce under Section 13-B of HMA, 1955 and the said amount is also being utilized for the maintenance of their daughter, Ms. 'K'. The D.D. of Rs. 80,00,000/- (Eighty Lacs Only) was to be handed over to the respondent No.2 at the time of filing of the second motion. However, before the second motion could be filed, the respondent No. 2 herself withdrew from the terms of the Mediated Settlement Agreement, which she had herself entered into voluntarily and with free consent, alleging that the petitioner induced her to sign the agreement under pressure.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.2 is playing hot and cold at the same time and by doing the same, she is tarnishing the sanctity of Settlement Agreement and the said allegations are merely a way to extort more money from the petitioner unlawfully in the name of streedhan. He submitted that the acts and omissions of respondent No. 2 are not only contemptuous but also fall within the definition of perjury and to substantiate this contention, learned counsel drew attention of the Court towards the order dated 12.04.2022 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.322/2022 and order dated 08.10.2024 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No.245/2022. On these (Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32969] (10 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022] aforementioned grounds, the learned counsel implored the Court to allow the instant criminal misc. petition.
12. Per contra, Bhagyashree Sharma- respondent No.2 (present in person) vehemently and fervently submitted that ample evidence is available on record to indicate that the petitioner has backed out from the terms of the Mediated Settlement Agreement. According to the respondent No. 2, the petitioner never had any intention to comply with the terms and conditions of the Mediated Settlement Agreement and he only used it as a tool to escape the clutches of law. To substantiate this contention, respondent No.2 drew the attention of the Court towards the fact that though as per the terms and conditions of the Mediated Settlement Agreement, the petitioner was under
an obligation to disburse the sum of Rs.1,80,00,000/- (One Crore Eighty Lacs Only) in favour of respondent No.2 and their daughter but he has paid only a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore Only) towards the maintenance of her daughter. The denial of immediate payment of the remaining Rs.80,00,000/- (Eighty Lacs Only) in favour of respondent No.2 leaves no room of doubt that he did not want to adhere to the terms of the Mediated Settlement Agreement. The respondent No. 2 submitted that not only did the petitioner fail to make the payment of the remaining amount but he also applied to the learned trial Court in order to recover the amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore Only). The respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner's refusal to pay Rs.80,00,000/- (Eighty Lacs Only), coupled with his application before the Court (Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32969] (11 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022] of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to withdraw the maintenance amount made in favour of their daughter Ms. "K", clearly demonstrates a willful conduct of non-compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and a blatant disregard for the petitioner's legal and moral obligations towards the welfare and maintenance of his minor daughter.
13. The respondent No. 2 further submitted that in addition to violation of the terms of the Settlement Agreement as aforementioned, the respondent No.2 discovered that her valuable ornaments, jewelry, and utensils, compromising approximately 2 kgs of gold and 20 kgs of silver, have yet not been recovered by the Investigating Agency. In other words, the entire alleged streedhan, has yet not been handed over or deposited by the petitioner with the police.
14. The respondent No.2 further also alleged that the petitioner had threatened her to viral her objectionable pictures which were clicked while they were living together as husband and wife. The petitioner had also been continuously using abusive language against her. The matter relating to threats by the petitioner with respect to making make her objectionable pictures viral is pending before the criminal Court at Jaipur.
15. The respondent No. 2 contended that she is incurring significant expenses related to her daughter's health, and the interest earned from the sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (One Crore Only) is being utilized for the ongoing treatment of Ms. "K." She prayed that the petitioner be directed to hand over a part of their (Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32969] (12 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022] daughter's umbilical cord, which is currently in the possession of the petitioner.
16. Lastly, the respondent No. 2 submitted that the Mediated Settlement Agreement can be considered to be a contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, provided it meets the essential elements of a valid contract. She submitted that the petitioner's acts and omissions in the present case, clearly demonstrate his unwillingness to comply with certain terms and conditions of the agreement and consequently, considering the Mediated Settlement Agreement as a contract, she also has the right to be excused or released from her obligations under the said agreement. Thus she prayed that since the Mediated Settlement Agreement between the parties holds no value, the instant petition may be dismissed and the subordinate Courts may be directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
In support of the arguments raised by the respondent No.2, reliance was placed on the judgments rendered in the following cases:
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v Cherian Varkey Construction Co., (2010) 8 SCC 24 Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. (1954) SCR 310 Food Corporation of India v. AM Ahmed (1990) 1 SCC 397 Sushila Devi v Hari Singh (2002) 2 SCC 348 Union of India v. Kishorilal Gupta & Bros (1990) 1 SCC 536 Rajasthan State Electricity Board v Mohan Lal & Ors. (2007) 8 SCC 319 Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (1979) 2 SCC 409 (Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32969] (13 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022] Sailaja Developers v Municipal Corp. of Greater Mumbai (2015) 3 AIR Bom R 710 M/S Guru Nanak Industries v. Amar Singh (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1645.
17. E-Converso, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire streedhan has already been recovered by the investigating agency. He further stated that the respondent No.2 had voluntarily and with her free consent signed the agreement, whereby she had acknowledged that there is no dispute remaining regarding her streedhan. He submitted that the respondent No.2, only with a view to retract from the Mediated Settlement Agreement is alleging that the petitioner is still in possession of her gold/silver ornaments and jewelry.
18. Learned counsel further submitted that despite the order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh, District Churu for release of recovered streedhan in favour of the respondent no. 2 on her furnishing bail bonds and supurdaginama, the respondent No.2 has not taken the recovered streedhan for reasons best known to her. He submitted that the intentions of respondent No. 2 to keep the petitioner embroiled in prolonged litigation are clearly evident from her conduct in the present case.
19. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner never intended to demand the return of the Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (One Crore Only) paid by him towards the maintenance of his daughter, Ms. "K." However, considering that respondent No. 2 was unwilling to honour the terms and conditions of the Mediated Settlement Agreement and taking into account her conduct, the petitioner (Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32969] (14 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022] filed the application to ensure the proper utilization of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore Only) paid by him. He further clarified that the petitioner has neither withdrawn the maintenance amount till date nor he intends to do so. Instead, he has prayed that he is willing to comply with all the terms of the Mediated Settlement Agreement and has requested the Court to enforce the same.
20. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent No.2 who has appeared before this Court in person.
21. After perusing the case files available on record and considering the submissions made by the respondent no. 2, the principal allegations regarding the petitioner's breach of the compromise can be summarized as follows: -
(i) That the petitioner after handing over F.D. of Rs.
1,00,00,000/- (One Crore Only) in the name of their daughter, Ms.'K', filed an application seeking return of the same. Further, a D.D. of Rs.80,00,000/- (Eighty Lacs Only) which was to be made in favour of the respondent No. 2 by the petitioner has yet not been handed over to the respondent No. 2.
(ii) The streedhan given to the respondent No. 2 by her paternal family at the time of her marriage, has yet not been deposited in its entirety with the Investigating Agency and the same still lies in the possession of the petitioner.
22. Consideration with respect to principal allegation No.(i):-
This Court, upon perusing the Court files, finds that the Fixed Deposit to the tune of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore Only) (Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32969] (15 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022] created by the petitioner in favour of his daughter continues to be utilized for her welfare and maintenance. Consequently, the amount has yet not been returned to the petitioner. The petitioner has specifically stated before this Court that he never intended to reclaim the F.D. created in favour of her daughter. However, the application for its return was filed by the petitioner only after the respondent No. 2 exhibited unwillingness to comply with the settlement's terms, particularly to prevent potential misuse of the F.D. entrusted to her for the child's welfare. On behalf of the petitioner, it was contended that the sum of ₹80,00,000/- (Eighty Lakhs Only) was to be paid to the respondent No.2 as per condition No. 6(c) of the Settlement Agreement between the parties at the evidentiary stage (second motion) before the competent Court hearing the mutual divorce proceedings under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The relevant condition No.6(c) of the Settlement Agreement is reproduced herein below for ready reference: -
"¼x½ ;g fd n~forh; i{k vuqie izFke i{k o mldh iq=h fd;k dks muds ,d eq"r Hkj.k iks'k.k ¼ONE TIME MAINTENANCE½ gsrq 1]80]00]000 v{kjs ,d djksM+ vLlh yk[k #i;s vnk djsxkA ftles ls ,d djksM+ #i;s dh Mh-Mh- ¼Mh-Mh- la[;k 295872 ,l-ch-vkbZ-cSda ½ iq=h fd;k ds [kkrs esa tek djkus gsrq izkfFkZ;k iRuh dks nsnh x;h gS ftlls og ,d ,Q-Mh- fd;k ds uke ls cuk dj mDr ,Q-Mh- dh jlhn dh QksVks izfr U;k;ky; esa tek djok,xhA ftlls feyus okyk ekfld C;kt iq=h fd;k dh csfufQV gsrq [kpZ djus gsrq izkfFkZ;k iRuh Lora= jgsxhA o mDr ,Q-Mh- dks bu&VsDV j[kk tk,xk o ftls iq=h fd;k ds vo;Ld jgrs dsoy U;k;y; dh vuqefr ls gh foFk&Mªk@jgu ¼ LOAN½ fd;k tk ldsxhA o iq=h fd;k ds o;Ld gksus mijkUr iq=h fd;k mDr jkf"k dks foFk Mªk djokus gsrq Lora= jgsxhA o vLlh yk[k #i;s iRuh HkkX;Jh ds uke ls mlds [kkrs esa ;k Mh-Mh- ds ek/;e ls izkFkhZ ifr vuqie ds }kjk gLrxr izdj.k esa U;k;ky; esa c;kuksa ds le; U;k;ky; ds le{k tek djok fn, tk;saxsA "
23. Consideration with respect to principal allegation No.(ii):-
Regarding principal allegation No.(ii), it is pertinent to note that during mediation proceedings, the respondent No.2 (Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32969] (16 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022] acknowledged that no dispute concerning streedhan was pending between the parties and further agreed that she would be free to recover her streedhan from police custody, should she choose to do so. The relevant condition no.6(a) of the Settlement Agreement between the parties reads as under:-
"¼d½ ;g fd izFke i{k o n~forh; i{k ds e/; fdlh Hkh rjg dk dksbZ L=h/ku ;k ysu&nsu lEcU/kh dksbZ fookn ugha jg x;k gS o tks L=h/ku Fkkus esa QkStnkjh izdj.k esa tek gS mls ysus gsrq izkfFkZ;k iRuh LorU= jgsxhA "
24. To address the aforementioned allegation, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were questioned in open Court whether they had prepared a jointly signed list of the presents (streedhan) given at the time of marriage, in accordance with the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985. The said question was answered by both the parties in negative. In other words, there is no record of any list, signed by the bride, bridegroom, or any other person present at the time of marriage, to verify the authenticity of respondent No. 2's claim that the petitioner retained her valuable streedhan. Additionally, the case record reveals that respondent No. 2 has not secured the recovery or release of the streedhan in her favour by furnishing bail bonds and sureties, despite the order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh, District Churu.
25. Conclusion:
It is not in dispute that on 05.03.2022, upon finding an element of settlement between the parties and with the consent (Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32969] (17 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022] of both the parties, this Court referred the matter for mediation before the Mediation Centre attached with this Court. In furtherance of compliance of the said order, both the parties entered into a dialogue at the Mediation Centre, in the presence of a trained and accredited mediator, who is well equipped with the necessary skills to facilitate dialogue and who also helped the parties amicably reach a voluntary and informed settlement. This Court finds that the respondent No.2 has questioned the piousness and integrity of the mediation proceedings on the ground that she was pressurised during the mediation proceedings by the petitioner to append her signatures on the Settlement Agreement. This Court finds it difficult to accept the allegation that the signatures of the respondent No.2 were obtained on the Mediated Settlement Agreement without her free consent through means of coercion as for the reason that the mediation proceedings were conducted in the Mediation Centre attached with this Court through a trained mediator under the orders of this Court; and no cogent evidence or material has been placed on record to substantiate this allegation. Further, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.322/2022 pending before this Court was decided on 12.04.2022, in the presence of both the parties by recording the mediation has been successful. Had there been any substance in the allegation, the same could have been raised by the respondent No.2 at the time of disposal of the said Criminal Misc. Petition. However, the respondent No.2 not only waited for almost four months to make an application to recall the order dated (Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32969] (18 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022] 12.04.2022, but in the meantime, also accepted the FD of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore Only) created by the petitioner in favour of daughter, Ms. K and also utilised the interest accruing from the said FD.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Trisha Singh vs. Anurag Kumar reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1191, has criticised the conduct of either of the parties, who wants to wriggle out of a Settlement Agreement only with a view to harass the other party. It is pertinent to note here that while disposing of the application S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No.245/2022, filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 to recall order dated 12.04.2022 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.322/2022, this Court observed that the respondent No.2 is trying to arm twist her husband to extract more money and after having gleefully accepted the one time compensation/alimony, she has now taken a U-turn just for more money.
In the opinion of this Court, if either party to a Mediated Settlement Agreement, is allowed to resile from the said agreement, which has been executed in free and fair manner and in the presence of trained mediator, then it would be detrimental to the efforts made by Legislature and Judiciary to strengthen and formalize 'Mediation' as a vital mode of justice delivery systern which in turn would discourage parties from turning towards any forum of Alternate Dispute Resolution to get their disputes redressed.
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32969] (19 of 19) [CRLW-335/2022] The judgments cited at bar by the respondent No.2 appearing in person do not pertain to Settlement Agreements or an agreement reached at by the process of mediation. Thus, the said judgments have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
26. Consequently, the instant criminal writ petition merits acceptance and is hereby allowed. The Settlement Agreement dated 06.04.2022 is held binding upon the parties. The criminal cases pending between the parties, the details whereof have been given in para 3 of this judgment are quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.80,00,000/- (Eighty Lacs Only) as permanent alimony to respondent No.2 on her appearance on second motion before the Court of learned ADJ, Sujangarh, Churu in the pending application under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the event, the respondent No.2 fails to appear before Court of learned ADJ, Sujangarh, Churu on second motion, an ex-parte divorce decree shall be passed in favour of the petitioner. However, the petitioner shall deposit the amount of alimony to the tune of Rs.80,00,000/- (Eighty Lacs Only) through FD with the Court of learned ADJ, Sujangarh, Churu in favour of respondent No.2.
27. No order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J himanshu/-
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 09:49:20 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)