A petition was filed for quashing of a FIR for offences punishable under S. 498A/406/34 IPC.
Facts of the case:
The wife had alleged cruelty by her husband and in-laws in the FIR lodged by her against them. The FIR had named the husband, the brother of the husband’s father, his son, and the elder brother of the husband.
The matter was sent for mediation and they had amicably settled the case and resolved all disputes. Subsequently a mediation settlement agreement was entered into this regard. All the past, present and future disputes ended with this settlement agreement between the parties.
After the signing of the MoU the wife had a change of heart. She stated before the court that she had only entered the agreement with her husband and not other’s named in the FIR.
Unfortunately, the settlement agreement had not mentioned the names of the petitioners and their names were also not there in the quashing petition.
Contentions of the Parties
The parties stated that the wife was not supporting them even though the dispute was already settled between the parties as per the agreement.
The wife, on the contrary, had stated she had settled with the husband only. According to her, only the husband had signed the agreement and not the rest of the parties but agreed that she had got money as a settlement of her claims.
The court referred to the agreement entered into by the parties. As per the agreement, both parties amicably agreed to end their marriage.
They had agreed on the settlement amount, too.
They had also agreed on the way they will pay it, that is, through instalments upon reaching the appropriate case stages. She had also agreed that she will cooperate with them in getting the FIR quashed against them. Subsequently, she accepted this as full and final. Both the parties had agreed not to further litigate against each other, including their family members.
The court inferred that the husband had appeared for his other family members, too.
The court reasoned that taking into account the non-legal backgrounds of the petitioners, it can be reasonably inferred that the petitioners would have assumed they didn’t have to go for the quashing. The Court said that since the agreement had mentioned that the parties are settling all the past, present and future claims and that the parties had agreed about non-interference in each other’s lives, the wife was well aware that the respondents were also party to the settlement.
Only to take advantage of the shortcomings, she approached the court and stated that she had entered into the settlement with the husband only. She had insisted before the court that the matter should be sent to the mediation centre again if the petitioners want to quash the FIR against them.
The court observed that the settlement was not with the husband only and that both parties had agreed to stop further litigation.
The court found the approach of the wife flawed and inappropriate as she had already taken the settlement amount. The court observed that the case has defeated the main purpose of mediation in this case. They had dragged the legal proceedings for nothing for 10 years.
The court refrained from accepting that settlement that was entered into was with the husband only. The court admitted that the petitioners underwent gross injustice.
The court noted that the dispute is mainly due to the incomplete and vague language of the agreement. It should have incorporated every single word with due carefulness in an agreement.
The mediation process provides for the out-of-court settlement.
For the allegation of the matrimonial offences, not all the accused can appear in mediation. Mediation primarily takes place between the husband and wife only. Hence, the settlement of disputes is done on behalf of the family/parties by the husband. The mediator should be aware that the parties have reached an understanding between the parties.
However, in this case, the wife tried to misuse the agreement by tapping into the ambiguities of the agreement.
The mediator should have mentioned FIR, along with subsequent proceedings will be quashed. He had rather mentioned the quashing of the FIR only. It should also have specified all the names of the accused.
Such an agreement would have protected the petitioners. The complainant would have been bound to cooperate for quashing the FIR.
The agreement should also include the names, and terms specifying the settlement conditions. It should mention the relevant consequences of the breach, too. The mediators should draft such agreements with the intent of achieving finality. Mediators should ensure that the crux of the judicial process is incorporated into the agreement.
Given the repeated instances of the women/parties resorting to such act of retracting from her/their stance, the court pushed forward certain guidelines to save the valuable time of the judiciary and to prevent the undue harassment of the parties like the petitioners in the present case, the High Court set guidelines for drafting of such settlement agreements in Matrimonial Cases, which are as follows:
- The name of the parties should be mentioned in the agreement. Mediators should completely avoid any sort of ambiguity. Names, instead of the terms like respondent, petitioners, etc. should be used.
- Every single detail about the terms agreed between the parties should be mentioned in the agreement.
- Exact time frame for completing the terms and the execution of the terms should be there. Mediators should avoid tentative dates.
- There should be a default clause in the agreement. The mediator should mention its consequences in the agreement only.
- Payment method should be specified for any payment to be made, be it Demand Draft, FDR, etc.
- It should mention all the follow-up documents to be drafted and duly signed by the parties. It should include the date, place, proper procedure, who will pay for the documents.
- For the cases concerning 498A IPC, for the sake of cooperation in the FIR quashing, the agreement should mention the names of persons named in the FIR. It should also clearly specify the settlement of all the claims for the quashing of the FIR and also the subsequent proceedings arising out of that. It should unambiguously state that the FIR will be completely quashed against all the arrested, not arrested, charge-sheeted, not charge-sheeted persons upon the due payment by the husband or by anyone on behalf of the husband.
- Criminal Complaints or the Cross-cases filed among the parties should be specifically mentioned in the agreement. It should specify if any trial or investigation is pending against them. The name of the parties to that, the concerned court should not be missed. It should also mention how the parties wish to deal with that. The complaint, FIR, and Sections should be specified too.
- The agreement should have a clause that the parties have read and understood the agreement in their mother tongue.
- Most importantly, it should specify that the agreement is being signed by the parties on behalf of the parties not present and not signing too. Purpose of absence like the age, ailment, etc. should be specified in it.
- The language of the agreement must convey the intent of the parties and the agreement should specify the purposes to be achieved by way of the agreement.
The petitioners had the intent to end all the claims for once and all while entering into the agreement.But they were not aware that the wife will tap into the unclear language after such a long period. The court had to refer to the circumstances in the case and also the main objective of entering into the agreement. The court quashed FIR and all other proceedings. Court noted that the settlement agreement to end the case should not become a matter for future litigation.The mediator should ensure that the parties should understand the agreement in their mother tongue. The court directed that the Mediation center in charge should prepare the agreements in Hindi too.The parties should be allowed to bring their drafts. This will help the mediators that she has left no condition unattended. The mediators should have a clear picture of the future probable disputes. The mediators should unambiguously draft the agreements with clarity. And they should diligently address all the crucial aspects. People suffer a lot in matrimonial cases. Meditation is an alternative dispute redress mechanism. It should help rather than enhance their agony.