LI Network
Published on: October 31, 2023 at 11:30 IST
The Madhya Pradesh High Court emphasized the importance of compromise in matrimonial disputes and its role in maintaining peace and harmony in society.
The court observed that the objective of the law is not solely to punish offenders but also to promote tranquility.
The case in question involved a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR (First Information Report) filed against the applicants, who were accused under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Justice Prem Narayan Singh, presiding over the case, expressed that the court’s primary objective is to preserve peace and harmony within society. He noted that if a compromise is reached between a husband and wife through the efforts of their family members, it not only benefits society but also enhances the quality of their lives.
The complainant had accused the applicants of harassment and demanded money related to her residency in Australia. Allegedly, the marriage deteriorated after various financial transactions and unsuccessful attempts to obtain a residential visa for Australia.
Subsequently, the parties involved in the dispute reached an amicable settlement, and both the complainant and the applicants submitted a compromise application under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court registrar verified the compromise, and the applicants sought to quash the proceedings based on this agreement.
The High Court referenced Supreme Court judgments in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana. These cases underscored that the purpose of Section 482 of CrPC is to prevent abuse of legal processes and ensure the delivery of justice.
The court stressed that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that each case should be evaluated based on its unique circumstances.
Furthermore, the court underscored the importance of encouraging compromise, particularly in matrimonial disputes, as it fosters peace and harmony.
It noted that the objective of compromise is to enable parties to settle their disputes amicably through mutual agreement rather than engaging in prolonged legal battles, which can consume precious years.
Considering the settlement reached between the complainant and the accused, the court decided to quash the proceedings, arguing that allowing the case to continue could lead to additional disputes, contrary to the interests of the parties involved. The court emphasized that maintaining a hyper-technical view regarding the compromise could be counterproductive and detrimental to the parties.
In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the Trial Court, and disposed of the case titled “Pankaj Mehta & Ors. V. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Station House Officer & Anr.”
