Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Section 4821 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing a First Information Report (‘FIR’) registered at the New Ashok Nagar Police Station under Sections 498-A/406/342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and the consequential proceedings on behalf of the settlement made before the Mediation center in Karkardooma Court, Delhi, a Single Judge Bench of Chandra Dhari Singh, J. directed the in-charge of the counseling center, Karkardooma Court to file an affidavit within two weeks stating why necessary steps were not taken to make respondent 2 (wife) understand the contents of the settlement.
Background
The wife, in the present matter, apprised the Court that she was not aware about the contents of the mediation report as the said report was written in English and the contents were not translated to her in the vernacular language.
The Court was also apprised about the discrepancy in the amount conveyed to her during the settlement and the actual amount written in the document. The wife also submitted that the divorce between the parties took place without apprising her about the same and her signatures were taken without provision of complete information that led to divorce being decreed in favor of the petitioner.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that the grievance raised by respondent 2 raised serious questions about the practice being followed in the mediation center at the Karkardooma Court.
The Court said that the objective behind establishment of the alternate dispute resolution forums was to ensure speedy and amicable settlement between the parties without much hassle, but this objective cannot negate the rights provided to the citizens by the Constitution.
The Court stated that even though the official language for proceedings and documentation was English, the authority concerned is duty bound to translate the contents of such documents to a person not well versed with the same. Therefore, the Court said that it becomes the duty of the authority concerned to ensure the appropriate translation of the relevant documents before the parties arrive at settlement.
It was noted that the present matter portrayed the alarming situation that was prevailing in the courts of the country where the complainant is oblivious to the contents of the compromise and still the mediation centers proceed with the same.
The Court directed the in-charge of the counseling center, Karkardooma Court, Delhi to file an affidavit stating why necessary steps were not taken to make respondent 2 understand the contents of the settlement within two weeks.
The matter has been further listed on 05-11-2024.
[Santosh Kumar v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7203, Decided on 14-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioners — Not given
For Respondents — APP Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, Advocate Vishesh Wadhwa, Advocate Swadha Gupta, Advocate Anant Singh, Advocate Ayush Singh Sahni, Advocate Shivam Dahiya
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
