Courts While Dealing With Cancellation Reports In Matrimonial Cases Should Take Compassionate Approach: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said Courts should take a compassionate approach to dealing with cancellation reports in cases pertaining to marital discord, especially when the complainant herself accepts them.

The police file a cancellation report after an investigation when no material is found against the accused to file the chargesheet.

In the present case, the Court quashed the FIR lodged by the wife alleging cruelty against her husband and in-laws. The trial court, despite observing that no case was made out, directed further investigation after the police filed the cancellation report.

Justice Sumeet Goel said, "the Court while dealing with the cancellation report filed in such like case; which stem out of matrimonial discord between the parties especially in the backdrop of acceptance of such cancellation by the complainant herself; ought to proceed in a compassionate manner and not with a pedantic approach."

It is a settled proposition of law that the compromise, in modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the process of the Court is used in furtherance of such a harmonious atmosphere it would certainly promote amity between the parties leading to an orderly and tranquil society, the judge added.

These observations were made while hearing the plea of the husband and father-in-law of the complainant under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR. The FIR was lodged under Sections 406, 498- A and 34 of the IPC.

It was alleged that the complainant was harassed by her in-laws for various dowry demands.

After investigation, the police found that no offence under Sections 406 and 498-A of IPC is made out against the petitioners, and the FIR in question was wrongly registered against them. Accordingly, a cancellation report was filed by the Police, in the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Court.

The cancellation report filed by the police was, however, rejected by the Court observing that, "During investigation, as per the report, matter was compromised between the parties, on the basis of which cancellation report has been submitted...As per the law, Section 498-A of IPC is non- compoundable offence. Accordingly, in my view cancellation on the basis of compromise cannot be accepted."

After examining the submissions, the Court noted that "it is apparently clear that the FIR was a result of matrimonial discord between the parties."

"A bare perusal of the FIR lodged against the petitioners, manifestly makes it clear that it is a case of rancorousness on the part of the complainant on account of the facts which do not, in any manner, constitute an offence under Sections 406 and 498-A of the IPC. The ingredients of the offence under Sections 406 and 498-A, are not only lacking, rather are conspicuously and curiously not to be found in existence in the entire contents of the FIR," the Court added.

"There is not even a distinct line of allegation against the petitioners in the entire FIR alleging any instance of demand of dowry or committing of any cruelty to the complainant by the petitioners in connection with said demand," it said.

Consequently, the Court opined it is the fit case "for the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Section 482, to quash the FIR..."

Justice Goel highlighted that the Magistrate's Court while refusing to accept the cancellation report had not not pointed out any such instance, much less grave in nature, pointing to the commission of offence committed by the accused punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A of IPC.

"A reading of the FIR coupled with the factum of cancellation report filed by the Police and acceptance of such cancellation by the complainant herself; exhibits the faux pas by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Payal in the matter while rejecting the cancellation report filed by the police," opined the Court.

In the light of the above, the Court quashed the FIR.

Mr. K.P. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Tiwana, AAG Punjab.

Title: XXXX v. XXXX

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 235