‘Hyper-Technical’ View Regarding Compromise In Matrimonial Disputes Counter-Productive: MP High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Husband

Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently quashed a criminal case pending against a husband by following the reasoning that a compromise has already been reached between the concerned spouses, and that the court can avail its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings based on the compromise arrived upon by both parties.

“If compromise between husband and wife is effectuated by the attempts of their family members, it will not only be good for society but also beneficial for their remaining life. The object of compromise is to settle down. The object of compromise is to settle in life and live peacefully”, the court noted while disposing of the matter.

The single-judge bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh also observed that law must also be considered as a means to ‘maintain peace, tranquility and harmony in the respective society’ and not just ‘to punish the offenders’. The court also opined that compromise in matrimonial disputes should be encouraged to avoid the loss of time that the parties might incur due to prolonged proceedings in a court of law, ‘where it takes years and years to conclude a dispute’.

Considering the facts of the case wherein the husband and wife have made an amicable settlement of the issues and reached a conscious decision to live separately, a ‘hyper-technical view’ of the compromise can be counterproductive, the court further added.

“…therefore, hyper-technical view regarding the compromise can be counterproductive and against the interest of the woman and against the pious object for which the disputes between husband and wife have been settled, because in case the criminal proceedings are still permitted to continue then fresh series of dispute may start between the wife and the members of the family of her husband”, the bench sitting at Indore remarked.

While quashing the criminal proceedings, the court analysed Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2012) and B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) to arrive at the conclusion that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings is not limited by Section 320 CrPC that solely deals with the compounding of offences.

In Gian Singh, it was held by the apex court that the powers given to the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is quite distinct from Section 320 CrPC.

“…Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guidelines engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court”, a three-judge bench of Supreme Court opined while also adding that the decision to quash an FIR in matters where the offender and the victim have reached a settlement will depend on facts and circumstances of each case.

The apex court also underscored in Gian Singh that criminal cases having ‘overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour’ stand on ‘a different footing for the purposes of quashing’. The court also included offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry or family disputes in the category of offences where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature.

“…In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim”, the apex court had observed back in 2012.

Background

The FIR was filed against the petitioners for offences under Section 498-A, 323 and 324 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The relationship between the husband and wife steadily deteriorated after their marriage in 2018. According to the respondent/complainant wife, she was harassed by the husband’s family for petty reasons. Moreover, she was also allegedly denied the opportunity to shift to Australia along with her husband despite taking huge sums of money from the complainant’s family under the guise of making arrangements for a residential visa.

Before the High Court, it was argued by the petitioners that the Australian Court had already granted a divorce to both of them and the FIR was filed solely with the intent of harassing the husband and his family.

Later an application under Section 320 CrPC (Compounding of Offences) was filed by both parties and the compromise application was also verified by the Principal Registrar of High Court. Hence, it was urged by the applicant petitioners to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 124/2021 since the continuation of the criminal case at this stage would amount to ‘a sheer wastage of valuable time’ of the lower court. As per the terms of the settlement, it was also agreed upon between the parties that none of them would initiate any further legal proceedings in the future with regard to this marriage.

After the verification of compromise, the complainant herself appeared in person before the High Court and requested the court to end the criminal proceedings ongoing in the trial court.

Case Title: Pankaj Mehta & Ors v. State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Case No: Misc. Criminal Case No. 33634 of 2023

Click Here To Read/ Download Order