Cruelty FIR Can Be Quashed Where Parties Have Genuinely, Amicably Settled Differences: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed a cruelty FIR lodged by a wife against her husband and his relatives after the parties entered into a settlement of the matrimonial dispute, holding that cases where parties have genuinely, amicably settled their differences and where conviction possibility is remote can be quashed. 

The Court observed that continuing criminal proceedings in such circumstances may result in “unnecessary harassment” or abuse of the process of law.

The Court made the observation while quashing criminal proceedings under Section 85 BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against six accused, after the de facto complainant, who was the wife of Accused No.1, entered into a voluntary compromise with them.

Section 85 BNS deals with cruelty by a husband or his relatives and corresponds to the erstwhile Section 498-A IPC.

Although the offence is non-compoundable, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash proceedings in appropriate cases where the matrimonial dispute has been amicably resolved.

Against this backdrop, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam observed:

“It is pertinent to note that, the main object of Section 498A proceeding is to prevent the criminal process from continuing when the dispute is essentially matrimonial and personal in nature and the parties have genuinely settled their differences. Although Section 498A is non-compoundable offence, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in appropriate cases. The purpose is not to encourage compromise in genuine cases of cruelty, but to ensure that where the matrimonial dispute has been amicably resolved and the possibility of conviction is remote, continuing the criminal case does not result in unnecessary harassment or abuse of the process of law.

Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the nature of the offences, as no adverse antecedents or conduct was found against the accused, the parties on their free will and volition, willingly to put a quietus to all their disputes, which will advance peace and harmony among the parties. More so, the cause of administration of the criminal justice system would remain unaffected.”

The case arose from a matrimonial dispute between the de facto complainant and her husband. Six persons were arrayed as accused in the criminal proceedings, with the husband being Accused No.1 and the remaining five persons also being proceeded against as Accused Nos. 2 to 6.

Following a complaint, criminal proceedings were initiated for the alleged offences under Section 85 BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and were pending before the trial court.

The six accused thereafter approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.

During the pendency of the petition, both sides informed the High Court that they had settled the dispute outside the Court with the intervention of their elders and well-wishers. They consequently filed applications seeking permission to compound the offences and record the compromise.

The de facto complainant, in an affidavit filed in support of the application, stated that she had agreed to the settlement on the advice of the well-wishers and family elders of both sides.

She further categorically stated that there was no coercion, force or misrepresentation and that she was acting out of her own free will and wish.

The High Court considered the principles governing the exercise of its inherent powers to quash non-compoundable offences on the basis of a settlement, including the nature of the offence and the conduct of the accused.

It found that there were no adverse antecedents or conduct against the accused.

The Court further noted that the parties willingly sought to put a quietus to their disputes, which would advance peace and harmony between them, without affecting the administration of criminal justice.

It accordingly exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 CrPC, and quashed the criminal proceedings against the six accused.

The criminal petition and the connected applications were accordingly allowed.

Counsel for the Petitioners: P. Nagendra Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent-State: K. Sandeep, Assistant Public Prosecutor