NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10520 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 862/2017]

PRITI PATEL APPELLANT(S)                                 VERSUS

NALIN SATYAKAM KOHLI & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J.

Leave granted. 2. The appellant approached this Court with certain grievances  regarding  the  order  dated  17.08.2016 passed  by  the  High  Court  in  Contempt  Case  (C) No.964/2016.  The allegation is that Respondent No.1 has  violated  the  terms  of  settlement  whereby  the appellant and Respondent No.1 had been granted decree of divorce by mutual consent.  The appellant/wife has a lawyer daughter and the Respondent No.1 is himself a lawyer of this Court. 3. The appellant and the Respondent No.1 are present before  this  Court.   In  clear,  unmistakable  and categorical terms both of them have submitted that they only want peace.  Both of them have a case that they  are  emotionally  stressed  on  account  of continuing litigations between them and allegations raised against each other.

1

4. The whole purpose of granting a decree of divorce by mutual consent is only to enable the parties to part  as  friends  and  not  to  continue  as  foes thereafter. 5. We had a doubt in our mind as to whether this was a decree granted on mutual consent and, therefore, we had also sought for the records from the Family Court concerned. 6. Now that the parties only want the terms of the settlement to be respected and followed, we are of the  view  that  it  is  in  the  interest  of  both  the parties  to  give  a  quietus  to  all  their  disputes. Therefore, in terms of the settlement, the following cases/proceedings  between  the  parties  shall  stand quashed:-

i. CC Case No.Cr.C/93783/16 titled State v. Priti Patel arising from FIR No.121/12. ii) All  proceedings  arising  from  Final Reports/Charge-sheets  dated  20.07.2013  and 23.2.2016  filed  in  FIR  121/2012  &  FIR I-33/2011.

7. We  are  informed  that  learned  Metropolitan Magistrate,  Saket  has  initiated  a  suo  motu  case, which  has  been  registered  as  Cr.C/93783/16  arising from FIR No.121/2012.  Now that the parties are clear in their mind that they do not want to pursue any litigation, it is only in the interest of justice and

2

for doing complete justice between the parties that the  said  criminal  case  registered  before  the Metropolitan  Magistrate,  Saket  is  also  given  a quietus.   Accordingly,  the  Cr.C/93783/16  pending before  the  Metropolitan  Magistrate,  Saket  stands quashed.  Consequently,  FIR  No.121/2012  registered with Police Station C.R. Park, New Delhi will also stands quashed.

8. Since  the  strained  relationship  between  the parties has caused a lot of unrest in the families and in the society at large, we are also of the view that  the  parties  should  be  restrained  from instituting any case/complaint against each other and the members of their family.  Accordingly, both the appellant  and  Respondent  No.1  are  restrained  from instituting any case or filing any complaint before any Court or before any Authority without leave of this  Court.   Needless  also  to  say  that,  this restraint  will  also  apply  to  the  members  of  the family of both the appellant and Respondent No.1. 9. The  submission  made  by  both  the  appellant  and Respondent No.1, that they will not hereafter raise any allegations against each other or malign their good name is recorded. 10. The  appeal  is,  accordingly,  disposed  of.   The records be returned to the Court concerned.

3

11. Pending  applications,  if  any,  shall  stand disposed of. 12. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

.......................J.               [R. BANUMATHI]  

NEW DELHI; AUGUST 16, 2017.

4