The Indian judicial system permits the quashing of criminal proceedings in some instances, especially when there has been a mutual agreement between the parties involved. An example is where the parties have consented to terms agreed upon, which settle their disputes, including criminal complaints. This article discusses a recent case in which the Bombay High Court cancelled the criminal proceedings based on an FIR filed for offenses under Sections 498-A, 406, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in view of mutual consent and settlements between the parties.
Background of the Case:
In the present case, a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) was moved for quashing Criminal Complaint No. 881/PW/2009 pending before the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, emanating from FIR No. 38 of 2009. The FIR was lodged by the complainant (Respondent No. 2), a wife, against her husband (Applicant No. 1) and his relatives for crimes under Sections 498-A (dowry harassment), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC.
The complainant had originally made the FIR in February 2009 due to a troubled marriage. The two of them got married in 2004 but had been staying apart for some time, with the wife staying in India and the husband in Australia. The complainant claimed that her in-laws had treated her badly when she used to visit their home, and her husband had been giving false statements about his educational as well as professional qualifications.
Resolution Through Settlement:
The couple had previously signed several terms of consent. Importantly, on 21st November 2016, the couple signed Consent Terms in Australia, which incorporated terms related to the shared parental responsibility of the child, custody orders, and the right of the wife to travel overseas with the child. Additionally, in February 2015, a Consent Terms were signed before the 32nd Metropolitan Magistrate Court of Mumbai to settle the pending criminal case under Sections 498-A, 406, and 506 IPC.
Specific terms of the agreement were as follows:
- Custody Agreement: Full custody of the minor daughter was agreed to be given by the father to the mother until the age of 18.
- Withdrawal of Criminal Case: The complainant also agreed to withdraw the case in criminal jurisdiction at Bandra Court, as well as the domestic violence case.
- Mutual Divorce: The parties agreed to file for divorce mutually in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai.
- No Future Claims: The complainant relinquished all future claims against the husband and his relatives in favor of the daughter, except as per the terms mutually agreed upon with respect to custody and visitation.
Notwithstanding these compromis agreements, the complainant later showed hesitance in fulfilling her promise to withdraw the FIR and the other connected complaints. This circumstance raised the legal issue as to whether she was allowed to withdraw her statements and undertakings under the consent terms.
Judicial Precedents and the Approach of the Court:
The court cited a number of legal precedents to consider the question of whether a party is permitted to withdraw from a settlement after it has been partially implemented. One such is the case of Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agarwal (2005), where it was ruled by the Supreme Court that when a compromise had been partly executed by the parties, to allow the reversal of the agreement by a party would be an abuse of the process of law. The court underlined that once a party has been granted the relief they sought by virtue of the settlement, they cannot subsequently argue that the settlement was under duress or coercion.
Likewise, in Delhi High Court cases (Kirti Jain v. J.P. Jain, 2006, and Manas Acharya v. State & Anr., 2012), the courts reiterated that once the agreement is signed and the parties start performing their respective obligations, it will not be possible for one party to abandon the settlement terms afterward.
Here, the court considered that Respondent No. 2 had already partly performed her obligation by giving her consent to the terms in Australia and Mumbai. Allowing her to withdraw such consent would not only be unjust but would be against the legal process.
Analysis of the FIR and Allegations:
On perusal of the FIR, it was held that the allegations of dowry harassment and other crimes were not supported. The wife had complained of how she was treated by her in-laws when she went to India for her visits, such as complaints of not being given food and the theft of her personal items. The court observed that there was no concrete evidence to hold the wife's allegations true, especially in the context of the mutual settlement.
Furthermore, the court took into account the fact that the applicants (the husband and his family) had been residing in Australia for years, and the complainant had lodged the FIR and other complaints in Mumbai, even though they were not staying there at the time.
Conclusion and Decision:
The court held that the FIR and the criminal case under Sections 498-A, 406, and 506 IPC did not reveal any prima facie case against the applicants. The allegations, even if believed at their face value, were not concrete enough to support the charges. Hence, as per the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the court quashed the FIR and the pending criminal proceedings.
The ruling of the court emphasized the need to respect settlements and agreements, particularly if they are entered into by the parties mutually and partly performed. It noted that the revocation of such agreements, particularly after the parties have obtained their sought relief, amounts to abuse of the judicial process.
Conclusion:
This case reiterates the judicial view that once a settlement is made and the terms of the settlement are agreed upon by the parties, the parties should not be permitted to withdraw from their agreement unless there are compelling reasons. The court in this case decided to quash the criminal proceedings, showing the importance of ending disputes through consent while not condoning the misuse of legal processes.
Section 406., Indian Penal Code - 1860
Section 498A., Indian Penal Code - 1860
Section 506., Indian Penal Code - 1860
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 482., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
