We must certainly assess the groundbreaking, influential, distinctive, forward-thinking, and pragmatic judgment in the case of Chhatter Pal & Ors v. State & Anr in CRL.M.C. 6197/2019 and (Neutral Citation : 2023:DHC:3396). This judgment, reserved on March 15 and finally pronounced on May 16, 2023 by the Delhi High Court, has established comprehensive guidelines for drafting mediated settlement agreements in matrimonial disputes. It emphatically underscores the urgent necessity for settlement agreements in Hindi. Honorable Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, presiding over the Single Judge Bench, deserves acclaim for her resolute advocacy of settlement agreements in matrimonial disputes, a pressing need.
Right from the outset, this erudite, commendable, recent, and landmark judgment, authored by the Single Judge Bench of Honorable Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, lays the foundation. In paragraph 1, it initiates with the statement, “By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C’), quashing of FIR bearing no. 519/2012, registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar, for the offenses punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) has been sought qua the present petitioners.”
To provide context, paragraph 2 outlines the basic facts of the case. The marriage between the complainant, respondent no. 2, and co-accused Lalit took place on January 23, 2011. It is claimed that the marriage broke down irretrievably due to the incompatible behavior, conduct, and temperament of the parties. Subsequently, a complaint was filed by respondent no. 2, alleging physical and mental cruelty, dowry demands, and beatings by her husband and in-laws, resulting in the registration of the present FIR against the husband and the petitioners, i.e., the husband’s father’s brother, his son, and elder brother of the husband.
The narrative unfolds further in paragraph 3, revealing that the matter was referred to a mediation center during the hearing of the accused husband’s anticipatory bail application. Fortunately, the matter was amicably resolved before the mediation center, with all disputes being documented in a mediated settlement agreement dated July 30, 2014.
It is then disclosed in paragraph 4 that the story culminating in an agreement to settle all disputes, past, present, and future, had a favorable outcome for both parties. However, a twist emerged as the police filed a chargesheet against all accused persons and notified the learned Magistrate about the settlement and quashing clause in the agreement. Simultaneously, the husband filed a petition to quash the FIR since he was the only one summoned by the learned Magistrate, and the FIR was quashed before reaching him. Subsequently, the husband’s relatives, i.e., the petitioners, were summoned by the Magistrate, leading to an unexpected turn of events. The complainant changed her stance after eight years, now asserting that she had not reached an agreement with the petitioners, only with her husband, rendering the FIR unquashable. Even after receiving the full settlement amount, including the fee for quashing the FIR, she refused to provide her statement for its quashing.
Therefore, paragraph 5 outlines the challenging situation faced by the present petitioners. They were fortunate that the matter was resolved amicably before the chargesheet could be filed, but unfortunate that their names were not included in the settlement agreement. They were unaware that they were also accused in this case. Although the chargesheet was filed without arresting them, they were unlucky that the Magistrate summoned them since the FIR had not been quashed in their regard. In essence, they believed that the FIR had been quashed, but regrettably, the entire settlement fee was paid to the complainant without specifying their names in the quashing petition. Even now, their misfortune in the present litigation continues, as the complainant refuses to provide a statement for the FIR’s quashing.
To summarize, paragraph 23 emphasizes that the complainant’s approach is neither correct nor acceptable. She has already received the entire settlement amount for resolving her claims, matrimonial disputes, and quashing the present FIR. If the settlement is found to be exclusively between the wife/complainant and her husband, it would undermine the fundamental purpose of mediation. The prolonged legal proceedings of 10 years, despite successful mediation, have defeated the very purpose of mediation in this case.
Guidelines for Drafting a Settlement Agreement in Matrimonial Disputes, with a Special Focus on Clauses Related to Criminal Cases
Significantly, paragraph 42 addresses the importance of the mediation process in resolving family and matrimonial disputes. It acknowledges the complexities that may arise due to inadequate drafting, inconsistencies, omissions, or oversights within a settlement agreement after successful mediation. In response, the Court deems it necessary to establish the following guidelines for drafting a Mediated Settlement Agreement in addition to the existing guidelines:
(i) Specify Names of Parties: The agreement must explicitly state the names of all parties involved. (ii) Avoid Ambiguous Terms: The use of ambiguous terms like ‘respondent,’ ‘respondents,’ ‘petitioner,’ or ‘petitioners’ in the absence of their names in the agreement should be avoided to prevent ambiguities and further litigation. (iii) Include All Details: All terms and conditions of the agreement, no matter how minor, must be incorporated into the agreement. (iv) Timeline for Compliance: Clearly mention the timeline for fulfilling terms and conditions and their execution, avoiding vague dates whenever possible. (v) Default Clause: The agreement should contain a default clause with explanations and consequences. (vi) Mode of Payment: If payment is part of the settlement, the agreement should specify the agreed-upon payment method, considering the parties’ convenience, such as electronic modes, demand drafts, or fixed deposit receipts, along with the necessary details for compliance. (vii) Follow-Up Documents: The agreement should stipulate which follow-up documents are to be prepared and signed by which party. It should also mention when, where, how, and at whose cost such documents should be prepared to fulfill the agreement’s terms. (viii) Cases involving 498A IPC: In cases involving matrimonial disputes, where one condition in the agreement is to cooperate in quashing an FIR under Section 498A IPC, the agreement should specify the names of all parties named in the FIR. It should explicitly state that the claims have been entirely settled, quashing the entire FIR against all persons, regardless of their arrest, chargesheet, etc. (ix) Criminal Complaints/Cross-cases: Criminal complaints filed by parties against each other, pending trial or investigation, should be specifically addressed. This includes naming all parties, the relevant court, and how the parties intend to handle these cases, along with complaint details, FIR numbers, and the sections under which they were filed. (x) Read and Understood: The agreement must state that all parties have read and understood its contents in their vernacular language. (xi) Signing of Agreement: If only some parties are present during mediation proceedings and their signatures are obtained on the agreement, it should be clarified that the agreement is being signed on behalf of absent relatives or parties, in cases that concern them, due to reasons like age, illness, distance, etc. This is particularly relevant for quashing FIRs and criminal proceedings where relatives may not be present in person. (xii) Clarity of Language: The language in a settlement agreement must be clear and unambiguous to reflect the parties’ true intentions and goals.
Importantly, the Court underscores in paragraph 46 that the majority of litigants approaching the Court speak Hindi as their first language. Given that Hindi is their mother tongue, and they are more proficient in Hindi than in English, it’s recommended that mediated settlement agreements be prepared in Hindi in addition to English, to enhance clarity for Hindi-speaking litigants. However, the Court emphasizes that parties well-versed in English can choose to have their agreement in English.
The Court notes that a Hindi Department has been established in every Court, and translation of judgments from English to Hindi is already in progress. Therefore, the Court directs that mediation centers ensure that mediated settlement agreements are prepared in Hindi in addition to English, where required. The goal is to facilitate understanding among parties who primarily speak Hindi, without any insistence on English-only agreements.
The Court expresses hope in paragraph 47 that agreements in Hindi, where needed, will enhance the finality of mediation agreements and their successful resolution in the Courts, which aligns with the primary objective of mediation centers.
Additionally, the Court suggests in paragraph 48 that parties, in some form, bring their agreements in their own language, which can assist the mediator in ensuring that no conditions are omitted when preparing the final agreement.
In a broader sense, paragraph 54 holds that the agreement in this case was intended for all the respondents, as specified in clause 5 of the Settlement Agreement.
Crucially, the Court directs in paragraph 55 that the prayer in the present petition is granted, and the FIR (bearing no. 519/2012) and all proceedings related to the offenses punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC are quashed.
The Court concludes by emphasizing in paragraph 57 that the confusion and prolonged legal proceedings arising from ambiguities in the settlement agreement underscore the importance of these guidelines. The guidelines are intended to minimize challenges to mediation agreements due to a lack of clarity or missing crucial aspects, serving the goal of resolving disputes promptly and preventing future litigation.
In closing, the Court directs in paragraph 58 that a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the In-Charge of Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (SAMADHAN) and the In-Charge of all Mediation Centers in District Courts of Delhi to ensure compliance and distribution among mediators. A copy should also be sent to the Director (Academics) at the Delhi Judicial Academy.
Finally, the Court orders in paragraph 59 that the judgment be uploaded on the website immediately.
In summary, the commendable guidelines established by the Delhi High Court in this significant case for drafting mediated settlement agreements must be promptly implemented. Encouraging the use of Hindi in such agreements is essential to ensure that they are comprehensible to the common person. There is no denying the importance of these measures.
Author Bio
