Sujoy Chatterjee v. Lipika Chatterjee

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

¶1Learned counsel for the respondent/applicant submits that vide the instant petition, the applicant–Lipika Chatterjee initially prayed to institute inquiry against the non-applicant – Sujoy Chatterjee under Section 340 Criminal Procedure Code for the commission of offences punishable under Section 191, 193, 199 and 200 Indian Penal Code and make a complaint for the prosecution of non-applicant upon

conclusion of such inquiry.

¶2Thereafter, vide order dated

26.10.2010, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the non-applicant, both the parties were directed to remain present in the Court.

¶3Vide order dated 05.04.2011, both the parties were directed to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Delhi High Court, New Delhi. Both the parties entered into amicable settlement before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Delhi High Court, New Delhi on

25.05.2011, which is as under:-

"6.The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto: a) The respondent has agreed to pay the balance of Rs.7,50,000/- from the sale of the property part owned by the petitioner which was sold earlier. The respondent has today i.e. 25.05.2011 paid to the petitioner a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash and the balance Rs.2,50,000/- by cheque No.109696 dated

25.05.2011 payable at Anadhra Bank, New Delhi in full and settlement of above. b) In lieu of the claim by the petitioner for return of her jewellery which the respondent has stated was stolen, the respondent agrees to pay a sum of

Rs.15,50,000/- through post dated cheques as follows:- S. No. Cheque No. Date Amount (In Rs.) Drawn on 111363 10.06.2011 1,50,000/- Andhra Bank. 037672 02.07.2011 2,00,000/- Andhra Bank. 037673 07.08.2011 2,00,000/- Andhra Bank. 037674 07.09.2011 2,00,000/- Andhra Bank. 037675 07.10.2011 2,00,000/- Andhra Bank. 001275 07.11.2011 2,00,000/- Andhra Bank. 001274 07.12.2011 4,00,000/- Andhra Bank.

c) In view of the above settlement, both parties who have been living separately since 2004 mutually agree willingly and in sound mind to annual their marriage by mutual consent.

d) It is also agreed between the parties that on the full and final realisation of the post dated cheques given by the respondent to the petitioner by December 2011, the petitioner agrees to withdraw the perjury case bearing No.3582/2010 against the respondent pending in Delhi High Court."

¶4Ms.Lipika Chatterjee - applicant is present with her counsel and submits that she has amicably settled all the issued against non-applicant – Sujoy Chatterjee. She further

submits that she has received all the above post dated cheques, therefore, he does not wish to pursue further her present petition.

¶5Keeping the settlement dated 25.05.2011, before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Delhi High Court instant petition is allowed to be withdrawn as settled.

¶6Non-applicant Sujoy Chatterjee present in person in the Court and submits that he is running a business of 'car-rental' and he is earning substantially, therefore, he wishes to donate some amount for the under-privileged children / poor women.

¶7I appreciate his gesture & accordingly, direct him to deposit a sum of `1.00 lac in favour of "Ashiana" 'Orphan Age Home for Boys-II', Alipur, Delhi within two weeks from today and proof thereof shall be placed on the record.

¶8Further directed to initially keep this amount in FDR for a period of three years. The interest accrued thereon shall be utilised for the well being of the needy children of the school. The said FDR shall be got renewed periodically.

¶9Accordingly, Criminal M.C.No.3582/2010 is disposed of in above terms.

¶10In view of above, Criminal M.A.No.851/2011 renders infructuous and stands disposed of as such.

¶11Dasti.

SURESH KAIT, J October 24th 2011 Mk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C.No.3582/2010 % Judgment delivered on:24th October, 2011 SUJOY CHATTERJEE ..... Petitioner/non-applicant. Through : In person. versus LIPIKA CHATTERJEE ..... Respondent/applicant. Through : Ms.Anu Bagai, Adv CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?