Continuation of Criminal Case an Abuse of Process: Calcutta High Court Quashes 498A and 406 IPC Proceedings Post Mutual Divorce
The Calcutta High Court, in a landmark judgment, quashed the criminal proceedings under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC against Sandipan Mukherjee, following a mutual consent divorce. The bench, led by Hon’ble Justice Uday Kumar, underscored the abuse of court processes in the continuation of the case despite an amicable settlement between the parties.
Court Observations and Views:
Mutual Consent Divorce and Settlement:
Justice Uday Kumar highlighted that the mutual consent divorce granted under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act inherently implied a resolution of all disputes, including the criminal case arising from the matrimonial discord. “The pendency of the criminal proceeding, despite the mutual consent divorce, amounts to an abuse of the process of the court,” the court observed.
Credibility of Legal Precedents:
Referencing the Supreme Court’s judgments in cases such as B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the court reiterated the principle that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash non-compoundable offences in cases of matrimonial disputes if the parties have settled amicably. “The inherent powers of the High Court exist to secure the ends of justice and prevent misuse of the judicial process,” Justice Kumar stated.
Witness Statements and Procedural Delays:
The court noted that despite the criminal case being pending since 2013, no substantial progress had been made, with the complainant expressing a desire to not pursue the matter further. “The delay in prosecution and the complainant’s lack of interest to proceed indicate the futility of continuing the criminal proceedings,” Justice Kumar pointed out.
Legal Reasoning:
Quashing Non-Compoundable Offences:
Justice Kumar elucidated the distinction between compounding offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He explained that while Section 498A IPC is non-compoundable, the High Court retains the power to quash such proceedings if continuing them would serve no useful purpose and result in injustice. “The essence of justice is served better when the dispute is amicably resolved, especially in matrimonial cases,” the court emphasized.
Justice Kumar remarked, “The continuance of the criminal case under Sections 498A and 406 IPC, despite a mutual consent divorce, would be an abuse of the process of the court and would defeat the ends of justice.”
Conclusion: The judgment marks a pivotal moment in addressing the misuse of legal proceedings in settled matrimonial disputes. By quashing the FIR and charge sheet against Sandipan Mukherjee, the Calcutta High Court has set a precedent reinforcing the judicial commitment to preventing injustice and promoting fair legal practices. This decision is expected to influence future cases, ensuring that settled matrimonial disputes do not unnecessarily burden the judicial system.
Date of Decision: 24th May 2024
Sandipan Mukherjee v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
