Take the pledge to vote

For a better tommorow#AajSawaroApnaKal
  • I agree to receive emails from News18

  • I promise to vote in this year's elections no matter what the odds are.
  • Please check above checkbox.


Thank you for
taking the pledge

Vote responsibly as each vote counts
and makes a diffrence


Issued in public interest by HDFC Life. HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited (Formerly HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited) (“HDFC Life”). CIN: L65110MH2000PLC128245, IRDAI Reg. No. 101 . The name/letters "HDFC" in the name/logo of the company belongs to Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited ("HDFC Limited") and is used by HDFC Life under an agreement entered into with HDFC Limited. ARN EU/04/19/13618
LIVE TV DownloadNews18 App
News18 English
News18 » India
1-min read

SC Comes to Rescue of Man Who Gave Rs 60 Lakh, 2 Flats to Estranged Wife to Settle FIR

Mohan was taken aback when the Delhi High Court refused to quash the FIR even after he paid the 60 lakhs to his wife and parted with the flats.

Utkarsh Anand | CNN-News18

Updated:June 12, 2018, 8:03 AM IST
SC Comes to Rescue of Man Who Gave Rs 60 Lakh, 2 Flats to Estranged Wife to Settle FIR
Image for representation.

New Delhi: Mohan (name changed) handed over Rs 60 lakh and the keys of two flats to his estranged wife. It was supposed to be a settlement for getting an FIR against him quashed. But he got a rude shock when the Delhi High Court refused to quash the FIR even after he paid the money and parted with the flats.

The High Court said that since Mohan has not agreed to give divorce by mutual consent, the FIR should not be quashed.

Almost three years on, the Supreme Court has come to the rescue of Mohan, who was left high and dry after he gave away the money and flats but still faced criminal charges of trespassing and theft.

A bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi recently junked the FIR against Mohan after noting that the memorandum of understanding (MoU) did not require him to also give divorce.

It highlighted that payment of one-time settlement money along with the two houses were the only conditions stipulated in the MoU for quashing of the FIR registered in Delhi and, thus, the High Court erred in adding divorce by mutual consent as an additional condition.

"There is no dispute that Rs 60 lakh and the immovable properties have been parted with. We do not find any term in the MoU which relates to divorce. In these circumstances, as the terms of the MoU have been complied with by the appellant and divorce is not a part thereof, the High Court, according to us, fell into error in refusing to quash the impugned criminal proceedings against the appellant," noted the top court.

It then quashed the FIR registered against Mohan in 2014 at the instance of his estranged wife and left the question of divorce to be decided in appropriate proceedings.

Get the best of News18 delivered to your inbox - subscribe to News18 Daybreak. Follow News18.com on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok and on YouTube, and stay in the know with what's happening in the world around you – in real time.

Subscribe to Moneycontrol Pro and gain access to curated markets data, trading recommendations, equity analysis, investment ideas, insights from market gurus and much more. Get Moneycontrol PRO for 1 year at price of 3 months. Use code FREEDOM.

| Edited by: Naqshib Nisar
Read full article
Next Story
Next Story

Also Watch


Live TV

Countdown To Elections Results
To Assembly Elections 2018 Results