Priti Patel vs Nalin Satyakam Kohli

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2017.08.22 they are emotionally stressed on account of 15:01:59 IST Reason:

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-33/20011.

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