'Bitterness Can't Be Genesis For Case': P&H HC Imposes ₹50k Cost On Wife Who Failed To Give Statement In Cruelty Case After Settlement, Quashes FIR Against Husband

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of Rs.50 thousand on a woman who failed to turn up before the Magistrate to record her statement about the settlement of the matrimonial dispute after taking maintenance from her husband.

While setting aside the FIR lodged against the husband for cruelty and allegations of harassment on account of dowry and Istridhan, the Court observed, "continuation of proceedings in the impugned FIR is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law and Courts"

Justice Sumeet Goel said, "Any attempt to misuse the process of law/Courts ought to be detested. The feeling of rancor or bitterness cannot be permitted to be genesis for procrastinating the culmination of legal proceedings especially when settlement/compromise has been arrived at between the rival parties. Abhorrence of such attempt(s) is pertinent. Ergo, the respondent No.2-wife deserves to be saddled with costs, which essentially ought to be in the nature of veritable real time costs."

 The Court summarised the following principles:

I.(i) In an FIR, arising from matrimonial related dispute, where the complainant/wife has reaped the benefits of a compromise/settlement & nothing more is required to be done by the accused-side/husband then such FIR (as also proceedings emanating therefrom) deserves to be quashed.

(ii) In a case of above kind; the complainant/wife may, but of-course, raise plea(s) that such compromise/settlement was a result of fraud/coercion/duress etc. However, such plea(s) ought to be substantiated by tangible material and merely bald assertion in that regard would not suffice. Furthermore, before allowing the wife to raise such a plea(s), the Court may also consider directing the complainant/wife to return the financial benefit(s) received in pursuance of such compromise/settlement.

II. In a case where the accused side/husband has undertaken some steps, in terms of as also in furtherance, of the compromise/settlement & such accused are willing to undertake all further/remaining act(s), as required in terms of such compromise/settlement; the High Court will be well within its jurisdiction, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. of 1973, to favorably consider such quashing petition upon the further/remaining act(s) being so undertaken by the accused side/husband.

III. No comprehensive/exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid- down in this regard as every case has its own unique factual conceptus. Needless to state that the High Court may exercise its intrinsic powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. of 1973 as called for in the facts/circumstance of a particular case.

These observations came in response to the plea for quashing of FIR filed by a man, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 406 of IPC lodged by his former wife. 

The allegations in the FIR were primarily related to the allegations of harassment on account of dowry and Istridhan-related criminal breach of trust.

It was submitted by the petitioner that the entire dispute between the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife was amicably settled & the petitioner-husband has fulfilled in entirety conditions, on his part as per the terms of the compromise deed.

The petitioner further argued that he had paid a total sum of Rs.22.00 lacs to the respondent-wife; a decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was also passed by a Family Court.

After hearing the submissions the Court considered the question, "The prime issue for consideration in the instant petition is that as to whether the impugned FIR (as also all proceedings emanating therefrom) deserves to be quashed in the facts/circumstances of the present case."

"The analogous legal issue that arises for consideration is as to whether an FIR...deserves to be quashed when the complainant-wife has reaped all the benefits from a settlement/compromise entered into between her and the husband/accused side but is not turning up to make requisite statement in accordance thereof for quashing such FIR," the Court added.

"Though Section 498-A was brought into the IPC, by way of an amending act of 1983, with the salutary objective of curbing the evil of dowry, but judicial experience evinces that this provision along with Section 406 of IPC is being heavily misapplied by the complainant-wife to settle score(s) with her husband and his family members," the Court observed.

Justice Goel highlighted that the Courts cannot be oblivious to countenancing the pragmatic and realistic necessities of time. The High Court, while exercising inherent and intrinsic powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. of 1973; ought to countenance the tangible and concrete realities, added the judge.

"It has been observed, inveterately, that a wife after having entered into a willful and valid compromise/settlement with the accused-husband and/or his family members, tends to reap all the benefits thereof and, thereafter, does not step forward for undertaking the necessary steps towards having the FIR in question quashed," the judge added.

The Court referred to Apex Court's decision in Mahmood Ali & ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [2023 INSC 684] to underscore, "in case of vexatious or malicious proceedings, the High Court is saddled with a bounden duty to look into the attending circumstances as also can even go on to read between the lines, while considering a plea for quashing of an FIR (as also all proceedings arising therefrom)."

In the present proceeding the Court noted that as the compromise deed the husband has already paid a sum of Rs.22.00 lacs to the wife towards maintenance/permanent alimony for respondent-wife as also the minor daughter born out of wedlock and a mutual consent divorce decree has been passed by the concerned Family Court.

"It, accordingly, is indubitable that respondent No.2- wife has reaped all benefits from the compromise/settlement deed in question and has also withdrawn a maintenance petition filed by her & nothing further remains to be done on part of the petitioner-husband," the Court said.

Perusing the report of the Judicial Magistrate the Court noted that the husband had turned up to have his statement recorded in terms of the order passed by the High Court Court. "

"The said report also indicates that the respondent No.2/complainant/wife did not turn up to have her statement recorded. The reason thereof is not difficult to fathom, in the factual backdrop of the lis," it added.

The Court opined that nothing except harassment would be caused to the petitioner-husband in case the proceedings in pursuance of the impugned FIR are permitted to continue,

"This Court, especially while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. of 1973, cannot be expected to turn Nelson's eye to the vexatious and virulent attempt(s) by unscrupulous elements in misusing the process of law in Courts," the judge said.

In the light of the above the Court set aside the FIR against the man and "saddled" his former wife with costs of Rs.50,000 stating that "Abhorrence of such attempt(s) is pertinent".

Advocate Ojas Bansal for the petitioner.

AAG Priyanka Sadar for the State of Haryana.

Advocate Tejas Bansal for the complainant.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 140