Hyper-Technical View Regarding Matrimonial Compromise Will Be Against Object Of Amicable Settlement: Madhya Pradesh HC Quashes FIR U/s. 498-A IPC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the aim of the law is not only to punish offenders but also to maintain peace, tranquility, and harmony in society. Emphasizing the significance of compromise in matrimonial disputes, the Court observed that if parties reach an amicable settlement, it is beneficial not just for them but for society as a whole. In this case, the applicants filed a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR (First Information Report) registered against them. The FIR was filed by the wife (complainant) alleging offenses under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
A Bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh held, “this Court is of the considered view that the aim and object of law is not only to punish the offenders, but, also to maintain peace, tranquility and harmony in the respective society. 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.”
Advocate Neelesh Agrawal appeared for the Petitioners and Advocate Rajesh Joshi appeared for the Respondents.
The complainant accused the applicants of harassment and demanded money related to her residency in Australia. According to the complaint, after various financial transactions and unsuccessful attempts to obtain a residential Visa for Australia, the complainant returned to India and the marriage deteriorated.
Later, the parties reached an amicable settlement, and both the complainant and the applicants filed a compromise application under Section 320 of CrPC. The compromise was verified by the court registrar. The applicants petitioned the court to quash the proceedings based on this compromise.
The Court referenced the Supreme Court's rulings in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana. The Court, in line with these judgments, observed that the purpose of Section 482 of CrPC is to prevent abuse of the legal process and to secure the ends of justice. It noted that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly, and each case should be considered based on its unique facts and circumstances.
The Court highlighted that the compromise between the parties, especially in matrimonial disputes, should be encouraged as it promotes peace and harmony. The Court added, “The object of compromise is to settle down in life and live peacefully. Need not to say that such type of compromise should be encouraged for maintaining matrimonial relations between the parties so that the parties may think over their defaults and settle their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting in a Court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties loose their precious years in attending their cases in different Courts.”
Considering the settlement between the complainant and the accused, the Court decided to quash the proceedings, stating that allowing the case to continue could lead to further disputes, which would be against the interest of the parties involved. The Court said, “the complainant and members of the family of her husband have settled their disputes and have decided to live separately and, therefore, hyper-technical view regarding the compromise can be counter productive 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 Court allowed the petition, quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the Trial Court, and disposed of the case.
Cause Title: Pankaj Mehta & Ors. V. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Station House Officer & Anr.
Click here to read/download Order