top of page
Party cannot be allowed to wriggle out of a mediated settlement unless vitiated by misrepresentation
Amandeep Singh Vs State
CRL. M.C. 5066/2018
About/from the judgment:
The High Court quashed an FIR registered against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 34 IPC along with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The petitioners who were represented by Sumit Nandvani, Advocate sought quashing of the FIR of the basis of the Mediated Settlement arrived at between the parties at Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts.
The wife submitted that the parties have already been granted divorce by mutual consent. Further, in terms of the settlement, she had received a sum of Rs 7 lakhs. However, she submitted some of the dowry articles including a motorcycle were not returned to her.
Upon perusal of the Mediated Settlement and joint statement made by parties, the High Court found that the wife clearly stated in the statement that she had received the alimony, stridhan, etc. in a full and final. Therefore, according to the Court subsequently she could not be heard to say that she had not received certain dowry articles. It was observed that ” party cannot be allowed to wriggle out of a mediated settlement unless vitiated by misrepresentation, etc.” In the present case, there was no allegation of any misrepresentation against the petitioners so the wife was bound by the statement. Therefore, the petition was allowed and the FIR was quashed.
Read the Judgment
Knowledge and content of about almost all their respective descriptions are borrowed from law-related blogs and websites, we, therefore, wish to give proper credit to all the respective law-related blogs and websites like LiveLaw, Bar and Bench, LatestLaws, PathLegal, FirstLaw, Lawctopus, IndianKanoon, Manupatra, LegallyIndia etc.. Many of the judgments are also taken from them websites of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other respective Hon'ble High Courts!
Formats for use
bottom of page