The Calcutta High Court has held that a subsequent amicable settlement of matrimonial disputes followed by dissolution of marriage through a mutual consent divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act constitutes a valid ground for exercising the High Court's inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Justice Uday Kumar held that where the matrimonial dispute has been completely settled, the parties have obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent and continuation of the criminal proceeding would serve no useful purpose, the High Court can exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to secure the ends of justice.

The Court made the observation while allowing a petition filed by Prince Bansal seeking quashing of a Section 498A proceeding arising from Lake Town Police Station Case No. 200 of 2020 and the consequential charge sheet.

The Court specifically framed for consideration whether the subsequent amicable settlement of matrimonial disputes and formal dissolution of marriage by a decree of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act could constitute a legally sustainable ground for invoking Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings under Section 498A IPC.

Answering the question in the affirmative, the Court held:

“a subsequent amicable settlement of matrimonial disputes, followed by the formal dissolution of marriage by a decree of mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, constitutes a valid, sufficient, and legally robust ground for the invocation of this Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.”

The Court noted that the petitioner and the complainant had married in 2018 through a court marriage, followed by a social marriage in December 2019. They separated in March 2020, following which the complainant initiated proceedings under Section 498A IPC.

A charge sheet was subsequently filed against the petitioner.

The parties later resolved their matrimonial disputes and jointly approached the Dwarka Family Court in Delhi for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Their settlement covered claims relating to maintenance, dowry, permanent alimony and stridhan. The complainant also gave an undertaking before the Family Court that she would withdraw the pending Section 498A proceeding after the mutual consent divorce was granted.

The Family Court allowed the first motion on March 29, 2023 and subsequently allowed the second motion on April 18, 2023, dissolving the marriage by mutual consent.

The Calcutta High Court noted that despite the divorce decree, the complainant did not cooperate in bringing the pending criminal proceeding to an end.

Justice Kumar relied upon the Supreme Court's decisions in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, which recognise the High Court's power under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes where the parties have genuinely settled their differences.

The Court reiterated that although Section 498A IPC is a non-compoundable offence, its non-compoundable character does not restrict the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC where intervention is necessary to secure the ends of justice.

The Court also considered the legal effect of the complainant's undertaking before the Family Court.

It held that an undertaking given to a court to withdraw pending criminal proceedings as part of a mutual consent divorce settlement carries legal significance. The Court observed that a party cannot accept the benefit of a mutual consent divorce while repudiating the corresponding undertaking to withdraw the criminal proceeding.

Referring to the circumstances of the case, the Court held that continuation of the prosecution after dissolution of the marriage and settlement of the matrimonial claims would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

“to compel the petitioner to continue facing the agony, stigma, and travails of a criminal trial under Section 498A IPC under these circumstances is a gross and manifest abuse of the process of law,” the Court observed.

The Court ultimately quashed General Register Case No. 815 of 2020 arising out of Lake Town Police Station Case No. 200 of 2020, the charge sheet dated January 31, 2021, and all consequential proceedings.

The criminal revision was accordingly allowed.

Case: SRI PRINCE BANSAL -VS- STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

Case No: CRR 2063 OF 2024

Click here to read order