http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  451-453 of 2008

PETITIONER: VIJAY PAL SINGH

RESPONDENT: YASH PAL AND ANR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/03/2008

BENCH: S.B. SINHA & V.S. SIRPURKAR

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 451-453   OF 2008 [Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.5728-5730/2007]

       Leave granted.         The parties during the pendency of the appeal filed before the High Court of Delhi  at New Delhi (being Criminal Appeal No. 192/2001), entered into a settlement.  Pursuant to and/or in furtherance of the said Settlement the appellant withdrew the  said Criminal Appeal No.192/2001 unconditionally and by an order dated 24.4.2003  the same was disposed of in terms of the Memo of Settlement arrived at between the  parties.            Our attention has been drawn to the said Memo of Settlement, from a perusal  whereof it appears that the first respondent herein had lodged a First Information  Report against the appellant, being FIR No. 316/1993 P.S. Samaypur Badli. In respect  of the said First Information Report, respondent No.1 made a statement before the  High Court that the proceedings would be dropped. However, recourse thereto was  not taken by the respondent No.1.                    Appellant herein filed an application for enforcement of the terms of the said Memo  of Settlement. By an order dated 18.11.2006 the same was dismissed by the High  Court stating: \023This application has been moved for enforcement of memorandum  of understanding arrived at between the parties pursuant to which  the appellant withdrew Crl. No. 192/2001. It is contended before us  that this memorandum of understanding should be enforced by this  Court. We find that the memorandum of understanding deals with  cases which are not compoundable. This Court cannot, therefore,  force party to enter into an agreement which is otherwise prohibited  by law. Application dismissed.\024  

       An application for review of the said order has also been dismissed by another  Division Bench of the High Court opining that the Court had no power to review.   

       Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that a  Settlement should be given effect to in its entirety or not at all. It may not be given  effect to in part. A party to the said Settlement cannot get advantage of a part thereof  and refuse to implement that part of the Memo of Settlement in terms whereof he has  some role to play.                   Learned counsel for the respondents states before us that in view of the fact that i n  the said criminal proceedings, a charge-sheet has been submitted and an order taking  cognizance has been passed, the first respondent being merely an injured witness  cannot withdraw the criminal case and/or take any part in getting the First  Information Report quashed by the High Court.  

       Technically, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 is correct. However, the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

respondent knew about the legal position when the said Settlement was arrived at. He  having entered into the said settlement, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to resile  therefrom.  

       We would assume that the said settlement is illegal being contrary to public policy.    If that be so, the entire settlement, in our opinion, should be set at naught. A party to  an illegal settlement, it is well settled, cannot take advantage thereof.  

                We, therefore, are of the opinion that in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article   142 of the Constitution of India and with a view to do complete justice between the  parties, not only the impugned orders dated 18.11.2006, 8.5.2007 but also the  Settlement dated 22.4.2003 should be set aside and direct restoration of the criminal  Appeal No.192/2001 to its original file. The proceedings pending against both the  parties shall stand restored.                The appeals are disposed of accordingly.