Can Charges be quashed amid settlement in matrimonial and Dowry cases
![Can Charges be quashed amid settlement in matrimonial and Dowry cases](https://lawwallet.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/matrimonial-law-divorce-oak-brook.jpg)
Table of Content:-
- Background of the case
- Issues Raised
- Statutory Provisions Involved
- Submissions of the parties
- Judgment Analysis
- Conclusion
- Case Laws:-
- Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A. DEEPA
- State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors.
Ayush Poddar & ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh [CRMP No. 162 of 2021]
Background of the case
In the present case petitioner no. 1 (Ayush Poddar) is the son of petitioner no. 2 (Girdhar Lal Poddar) and petitioner no. 3 and 4 are the cousin brothers of petitioner no. 1. On 17th January 2019 marriage was solemnized between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 (complainant). The marriage had been done according to the Hindu Rituals and Customs at Sambalpur. On 16th November 2020, petitioner no. 1 had filed an application under section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for obtaining a decree of divorce by mutual consent due to the ongoing matrimonial dispute between them.
On 27th November 2020, respondent no. 2 had filed a complaint in the police station against the petitioners and alleged that the petitioners have tortured her and demand dowry from her family. On the basis of the complaint, an F.I.R had been registered
The petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before the Trial Court but the same was rejected. On 7th December 2020, the High Court of Chhattisgarh had granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Petitioner no. 1 and respondent had reached the compromise agreement by settling their matrimonial dispute the said agreement reads as follow:-
“That both the parties have mutually decided to end all pending litigations including criminal case between them. For quashing the FIR no. 0258/2020 of police station Darri, district Korba, CG, the second party will submit an application along with a copy of this MOU to the police station Darri for getting the said FIR closed by way of closure report and on submission of such application the first party will support the filing of closure report by recording her statement in favor of closing the case. In case of the legal embargo in closing the criminal case at police station Darri and in the court of concerned magistrate by way of closure report, the second party will file a petition under 482 of CRPC/226 constitution of India before the High Court of Chhattisgarh for quashing the said FIR and first-party will support the petition by way of compounding the offense and investigation pending against the second party. The second party will also withdraw MAT 103 filed on 06.11.2020 in Sambalpur Family court, and a separate mutual divorce petition will be filed by both the parties in the Sambalpur Family Court as early as possible for which a suitable date may have arrived with the consent of both the parties. Both the party will be under obligation to take all necessary steps as agreed in this MOU for quashing the FIR of Darri police Station and both the parties will be under further obligation for filing the mutual divorce petition at Sambalpur Family court.
The second party had issued a defamation notice to the first party in connection with FIR 0258/2020 of Darri police station and the second party has agreed to declare all the allegations lavelled against the first party in the defamation notice null and void once the joint mutual divorce petition is filed as Family Court Sambalpur.
That it is also agreed between both the parties that upon filing of joint mutual divorce petition and joint petition for quashing of investigation of FIR 0258 dated 27.11.2020, educational and other documents belonging to first party will be handed over by Second Party to Sri Ashok Ji Agrawal who is a resident of Bilaspur. The handover will be done in presence of both First Party & Second Party and a document containing list of documents shall be signed in triplicate, a copy of which will be given to both the parties and Sri Ashok Ji Agrawal. Only upon disposal of FIR 0258 in Darri Police Station and successful dissolution of the marriage in Sambalpur Family Court, Sri Ashok Ji Agrawal will hand over such documents to First Party in presence of both the parties. Such handover from Sri Ashok Ji Agrawal to Second Party will be documented in triplicate, a copy of which will be given to both the parties and Sri Ashok Ji Agrawal. A list of documents handed over to Sri Ashok Ji Agrawal is attached herewith and it will be a part and parcel of this MOU.”
The petitioner had filed the present petition under section 482 Crpc for quashing the charges under section 498 A and 34 IPC levied against the petitioners.
Issues Raised
- Whether the court entertain application in case of non compoundable offence under section 482 Crpc?
- Whether the F.I.R. is liable to be quashed?
Statutory Provision Involved
- Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
(a) Any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.]”
- Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention
When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.]”
- Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
“Saving of inherent powers of High Court
Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
- Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
“Divorce by mutual consent
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnised before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976)*, on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.
(2) On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, the court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnised and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree.]
(i) The period of 6 to 18 months provided in section 13B is a period of interregnum which is intended to give time and opportunity to the parties to reflect on their move. In this transitional period the parties or either of them may have second thoughts; Suman v. Surendra Kumar, AIR 2003 Raj 155.
(ii) The period of living separately for one year must be immediately preceding the presentation of petition. The expression ‘living separately’ connotes not living like husband and wife. It has no reference to the place of living. The parties may live under the same roof and yet they may not be living as husband and wife. The parties should have no desire to perform marital obligations; Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash, AIR 1992 SC 1904.
(iii) The period of six to eighteen months time is given in divorce by mutual consent as to give time and opportunity to the parties to reflect on their move and seek advice from relations and friends. Mutual consent should continue till the divorce decree is passed. The court should be satisfied about the bona fides and consent of the parties. If there is no consent at the time of enquiry the court gets no jurisdiction to make a decree for divorce. If the court is held to have the power to make a decree solely based on the initial petition, it negates the whole idea of mutuality. There can be unilateral withdrawal of consent. Held, that since consent of the wife was obtained by fraud and wife was not willing to consent, there could be unilateral withdrawal, of consent; Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash, AIR 1992 SC 1904.”
Submissions of the Parties
The contentions of the Petitioners
1) Reliance has been placed on the decision of the K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A. DEEPA in which the court had quashed the charges under section 498 A IPC on the basis of mutual settlement of the dispute between the husband and wife.
2) Further, the counsel relied upon the decision of the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. in which the court summarized the law in considering the quashing of the F.I.R.
The contentions of both parties
As the compromise has been made it was urged that the court under section 482 Crpc quashed the charge alleged under the complaint.
Judgment Analysis
The court noticed that there is no dispute that the case under section 4198 A has been registered against the petitioners but the same has been settled between the parties.
Even on 16th February 2021 the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent has been examined before the Additional Judicial Registrar and the parties have submitted that a mutual settlement has been done between them and they reached this settlement without any pressure on any undue advantage to each other.
Conclusion
The court after taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration and on the fact that parties have mutually settled their matrimonial disputes and no grudges would remain between them. Therefore, it is not wrong to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners and if the proceedings would not quash then it ultimately amounts to abuse of the process of law.
Hence in the interest of justice, the court quashed the F.I.R. in the interest of justice.